-
This is what the terrorists want. As far as I'm concerned, Rolling Stone is just giving them exactly what they want on a silver platter. This will be the only response I give to this mess. It doesn't deserve any recognition whatsoever.
-
I do think @mrbee makes a good point that you have to read the intent of the cover in terms of the content of the article. I think it's meant to show him looking like a normal or even cool young guy, because the fact that he went from a popular high school student to an alleged bomber in a matter of a few years is a reminder that we don't really know what terrorists look like, or what people are capable of, and that is scary. That being said, it may just be too soon for something like this and I completely understand why people are having such a visceral negative reaction to seeing the cover.
-
@mrbee: I believe I'm in the minority here because the photo and the cover don't bother me. Is it in poor taste? Yes, I do think so. And yes, I think Rolling Stone should have used photos of the victims to show their strength and resilience in the face of tragedy but that's not what the article is about. It's about, "How a popular, promising student was failed by his family, fell into radical Islam, and became a monster" I get why they used that particular photo, a photo I've seen everywhere online and in the papers. And of course they probably used it to sell magazines, controversy sells.
Rolling Stone doesn't only cover music, they often cover major news. If this was Time or Newsweek's cover would people be as upset? Perhaps. Like someone asked earlier, would people be as upset if it was a mugshot? Listen, I understand why everyone is upset about this cover but I am very interested in reading the article. I'm always curious about what drives people to do horrible things to each other. We often paint people who do horrible things as monsters, like Hitler, like Charles Manson, but they aren't these big bad slimy scary looking creatures who sleep under our beds or hide in our closets--they're human and they look like you and me.
-
@mrsjazz: " If this was Time or Newsweek's cover would people be as upset?" -- I was thinking the same thing, like what if this had been on the cover of the New Yorker or something, and I honestly think people wouldn't have been as upset. I think people think of Rolling Stone as strictly a music and entertainment magazine, when that's not entirely accurate. And speaking of Charles Manson, Rolling Stone had him on the cover in 1970, so this is not really new for the magazine: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/pictures/1970-rolling-stone-covers-20040506/rs61-charles-manson-28695264
-
@mrsjazz: @MrsSCB: Time actually did put the Columbine shooters on their magazine front cover:
http://img.timeinc.net/time/magazine/archive/covers/1999/1101990503_400.jpgThey had the good sense though to also put pictures of their victims on the cover...
-
As a Boston resident, I'm very disturbed by this cover. I understand how the styling of the cover art goes with the content of the article - in the meanwhile I'm glad CVS and Tedeschi (a local chain of convenience stores) are boycotting this issue.
It's just too soon. The marathon was only 3 months ago. The trial is still going on.
Rolling Stone has been doing fine non-entertainment reporting for years now, but putting Tsarnaev on the cover at this point in time is strictly about selling magazines. There is no public service element to publishing this story now. It's extremely callous. See this tweet by a RS editor:
http://www.boston.com/news/source/2013/07/rolling_stone_magazine_editor_posts_salty_tweet_about_reacti.htmlIt was later deleted but obviously there's a real lack of sensitivity around the RS offices.
-
@mrbee: That's interesting, and I see now they also had this cover: http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19991220,00.html Now I'm wondering if there was the same backlash over those as the Rolling Stones cover? I guess they aren't as glamorous-looking as the "selfie" of Tsarnaev, but I personally I find the surveillance video photo more disturbing, probably because it's in the moment.
-
@mrbee: I remember that cover. Was there controversy over it? I don't remember if there was.
-
@MrsSCB: Agreed. That surveillance photo is disturbing.
-
I think the photo is in poor taste as well. As someone who lives and works in Boston, it does disturb me to see the face of a man who caused such devastation and tragedy on the cover of the Rolling Stone. I do however, understand that with the content of the article, the picture showing him sympathetically almost does make sense (at least a little bit) to me. That doesn't remove the sadness, hurt or betrayal that I automatically feel when looking at that or any photo of the suspected marathon bombers. I do agree, the attention should be focused on those who are striving every day to overcome the tragic turn of their lives inflicted by that boy and his brother. It's their story I'd rather read more about, see more pictures of, and in general, celebrate. I understand profiling the bombers is highly interesting; so I guess what I am saying is that I find the cover disturbing, yes. I am not, however, outraged. I don't think I'll buy it, but I am sure the RS won't miss my money.
-
@mrsjazz: I don't remember as much controversy over that cover... I think the victims on the cover protected them.
There was a separate Time Magazine story where they published footage of the attacks (and put surveillance footage on the cover) and that was pretty controversial.
- Google Plus
- Stumbleupon
- Twitter
- Facebook
- Pinterest
- Favorite0
50 comments