'Rolling Stone' Tsarnaev cover stirs firestorm — Page 3

I didn't want to look at the cover because I didn't want to give this story oxygen. But, then I got over that and decided to just look at it and register my impressions.

I think the disconnect here comes from the fact that it's Rolling Stone, which normally features glam shots of music stars. So our expectation is that. And to see Tsarnaev featured in such a way is jarring and disturbing. It also, for me, turns the notion of an Islamist terrorist on its head. How could someone who seems so plugged into modernity then turn around and do something so barbaric. To me, the cover effectively poses the questions that I assume the article is trying to answer...or at least shed light upon. It disturbs me...but it doesn't offend me.

I've been trying, however feebly, to say what Javero said.

"Some people... "

"can get a thrill...."

---

While I agree that it's on an individual basis and there should be no blanket generalization of the nation's reaction, I also think it is perfectly acceptable and normal for the country to unite behind the offensive nature of this cover. Especially when we all know that Rolling Stone could have published the meaningful article WITHOUT the sensational cover.

I wonder if those of you who are supporting this decision or dismissing the offensive nature would also be comfortable with Rolling Stone doing the same for the nineteen 9/11 terrorists only months following the attack. I would venture to say you would feel differently even though it's the same. However, if you can honestly say you'd have no problem with it, then I would worry about you and believe there is some kind of emotional disconnect.

Thanks Beedledeedle, it comes with the territory and sometimes with holding views which might be unpopular

Jane, another thing, I think one reason I interpret it the way I do, and which others here have helped me to focus on, is because I myself find it jarring and uncomfortable to see this photo of Tsarnaev, and in asking myself why I find it jarring and uncomfortable to see his picture on the cover of the Rolling Stone, I find myself thinking very much along the lines of what the article is attempting to bring out about who Tsarnaev is; which is why I find the iconography so compelling.

Updated On: 7/18/13 at 12:34 PM

I simply don't see it as glorification. But I don't have a problem with anyone feeling otherwise. I was simply registering my response.

And to answer your question, no...if a magazine of any kind did an in-depth article on the 19 hijackers, I wouldn't have a problem with their pictures being used on the cover.

Also, Liza's, it would most certainly not be the "same" if there were pictures of the 9/11 hijackers on a cover accompanying a 9/11 story. Every act of terror is its own individual case. They each develop from a series of specific circumstances that relate directly to that act of terror. People cannot lump 9/11 into the Boston bombing, no matter how much blood one has in one's eyes. I encourage you to read the article if you have not done so.

Is the problem being the magazine itself? Should a music magazine cover current events?

I guess what I'm asking is, would people have the same reaction if this was TIME or THE NEW YORKER or, hell, even ADVOCATE?

I apologize if this has been asked and answered already.

I think people have a problem with the cover photo because it's a really flattering picture of a terrorist. Would people have reacted the same way had this guy been a really ugly dude.


...and why is anyone even surprised at this. Rolling Stone had Charles Manson on it's cover a mere 9 months after the Tate/LaBianca murders.

Updated On: 7/18/13 at 03:05 PM

I'm with you all the way in your thoughts about this, Hendrik. As pointed out by not just you, Rolling Stone does regular intrepid political journalism in its issues. Matt Taibbi is brilliant. Its bent is liberal/progressive, and some potential readers won't go near it becuase of that. Yes, it also has politicians on its covers at times along with (far more frequently) recording artists, actors, and models. Sure, it would be different if it was more of a news/politics magazine because it's not the public perception of Rolling Stone.

Also noted here, Tsarnaev is still under the principle innocent until proven guilty. Except for a few cases, we Americans tend to have a short-term memory in general and don't think and analyze on a lot of things. I too don't see it as glorification like with SonofRobbieJ, but I can see why others be emotionally upset with it. As long as the article is in-depth, that's what matters to me. We should learn what forces are involved in making Tsarnaev allegedly commit the terrible acts.

Here's an excellent essay that gives some further in-depth thoughts that should be added with the Rolling Stone cover story, should you read that. There are others too that you can find online.

Is There A Chechen Connection To The Boston Bombings?

I have no doubt there are one or two or even more potential terrorists who have seen or will see this cover on a newsstand or online for years to come and think, "Yep. I know how to be heard. I know exactly what I must do now to reach people."

Well done, Rolling Stone Magazine.

---

Not specifically a Rolling Stone thing. It's a media thing, especially in this country.

Short of ending up on Teen Beat, they're really hitting the right age group for readers now.

I don't think we have to worry about AARP Magazine.

EDIT: And yes, I do think that certainly some terrorists are aware of who reads what. They can be a "rock star" now.

---

Updated On: 7/18/13 at 04:35 PM

Exactly, But they got what they wanted. Everyone's talking about the rag, and I bet they sold a lot this month. Curious to know.

---