There are times I think many of this country’s citizens need to grow up, and this outcry toward Rolling Stone for putting a photo of accused Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on its cover which doesn’t make the kid look like a wild-eyed maniac is one of those times.
Lots of my countrymen don’t understand irony. How many neighbors have we heard interviewed about the guy who’s just been taken into custody for serial killings say, “He was a nice quiet man. We never saw anything unusual.” That’s the whole point of using that photograph! Don’t take my word for it alone, either; here’s Matt Taibbi writing in the magazine:
the jarringly non-threatening image of Tsarnaev is exactly the point of the whole story.
Somebody wrote yesterday after seeing the bloody photos the cop released that those were much more likely to make the kid a martyr to the cause than the “glam” self-portrait RS used.
C’mon, folks, get a grip.
Respectfully, I disagree. I think a story is fine, but think he shouldn’t have been on the cover, glamorized or not. A small pic in a corner of the cover? That would have been acceptable to me. As it is, I do not like it, but I’m also not protesting or posting about it. I respect the rights of others to protest/boycott/etc., and also respect your right to not see it as a big deal. I do wish, however, that people would stop posting the pictures and links to the stories about it. That’s more attention than the “monster” is worth.
Have to say… sometimes sarcasm is simply just in poor taste. Sometimes sarcasm is just a complete fail.
I would say this qualifies as an epic fail.
And I think it’s very ungenerous to blame the listeners for a communicator’s failure.
Let’s face it, if your communication is poor and actually gets grossly misinterpreted, it’s pointless… or even worse than pointless.
According to Taibbi the editors at RS were stunned by the reaction. As Taibbi says in his blog post, maybe the problem is that too few people know the magazine’s proud history of political and cultural coverage. I’m a former subscriber, way back when it really was a tabloid printed on newspaper stock. I remember Hunter S Thompson’s articles, often illustrated by Ralph Steadman.
Charles Manson was on the cover too. A lot of people thought poorly of that as well. With good reason I think. I find it rather offensive how people have glamorized him.
I think the issue is that “the cover of The Rolling Stone” issue. It’s a “cover” that’s important and has historically been a benchmark of success. That’s what people find disturbing.
Whether the Rolling Stone likes it or not, culturally, their cover has been made into something in our society, bigger than the management of the magazine gets to decide. Things happen that way.
It is, of course, their decision & they have the right to put whoever on the cover they like. But they have to accept that people may object, not agree with it, find it offensive, and they may pay for it by losing respect or even interest.
I think people are getting more & more tired of the celebrity of criminals. I think finding it offensive & worrisome is justified.
Not written by me, but echos my thoughts Steve. Maybe you have to live here to understand how absolutely galling this was. The cover was strictly for the sensationalism and that was the only reason. There were many other ways to bring attention to the article. Sadly lots of people, myself included, will never read was written with probably the best intentions because we are so absolutely appalled by the lack of good judgement. And I agree, while the police photographer’s heart was in the right place, he never should have released those photos. Not sure if it made national news, but last week when this little cretin was brought to court, there were people, several of them, protesting, saying he should be set free. As you can imagine, that did not go over well around here. But the RS cover played right into their hands.
“Indulge me for a minute if you will. There are many that don’t “get it”. As we ready to cross the 100K mark, I would like to make a statement. We’ve had many people ask “why”, why are we doing this. “what’s the big deal?”. I want to give my point of view. Let me introduce myself… my name is Chris, I’m 42 and live in Raleigh, NC. No, I don’t live in Boston. I was a fan of Rolling Stone, have been all my life. I saw the cover minutes after they posted and I thought it was a joke. Once I realized it wasn’t, outrage set in. Just seeing the picture brought back the haunting images. But immediately I thought about the victims and their families. They were going to SEE this cover. They were going to walk into a store and see this monster on the cover of Rolling Stone magazine. Not Time, not the newspaper, not People. ROLLING STONE. For those of a younger generation, you may not get it. Rolling Stone isn’t the magazine it once was. But let me tell you… when I was growing up, the REAL bands made the cover. Bands aspired to make the cover. You were rock royalty if you made the cover. There have been songs written about it. Watch the movie “Almost Famous” for a glimpse into how important this magazine was to bands. This cover was mainly reserved for great entertainers, icons, rock royalty, and celebrities. I remember waiting to see WHO was going to be on the cover… many of us did. And then Rolling Stone decides to put a terrorist on the cover. It wasn’t the article, it was the COVER. Could you pour more salt in raw wounds? Why couldn’t they do an article and allow Bostonians, heroes, victims, etc. grace the cover? How about bands from Boston? Yes, we are lucky to have freedom of speech and freedom of the press… but with freedom often comes consequences. We cannot allow Rolling Stone magazine to think this is okay. What kind of message does this send? Huge bands never made the cover, but a terrorist did. All you have to do is blow people up and you “can make the cover of Rollin’ Stone???”. It makes no sense. So if you don’t understand, don’t boycott… you are free to buy all the copies you want. But please don’t try to come down on those of us that held Rolling Stone to a higher standard than this. When I started this page, I thought maybe we might get 100 likes. I had no idea we would get 100,000 in 24 hours… so I am glad I’m not alone. And don’t be mistaken, the victims and their families know what we are trying to do as well… it’s about a show of respect, it’s about honoring those that died at the hands of this man. Even if you don’t “get it”, TRY to understand why we are outraged. Think about little 8 year old Martin Richard’s family having to see this monster wearing a nice Armani shirt, on the cover of an iconic magazine, all the while reading how he was somehow “led astray”. He murdered people. He maimed people. He has no remorse. And there are more just like him out there. Rolling Stone is setting a HORRIBLE example. That’s the point of this page. It’s the COVER… not the article.”