Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on Rolling Stones Cover

[Question Mark]

So apparently the American social media found yet another thing to whinge about: the most recent Rolling Stone publication has the Boston Marathon bomber suspect on the front page.  From the cover and the story, it seems to be a mini-bio and editorial on Tsarnaev's (alleged) path to terrorism, although I have not read the article myself.

It doesn't seem like a big deal to me, just another magazine.  However, people -- both big name celebrities and the common person  -- are setting the Twitters and Facebooks on fire with complaints about how Rolling Stone is classless, inciteful, and stupid.

I don't get it.  Rolling Stone did a big story on the Boston Marathon bomber.  So what?  And even if you did think it was tasteless, why go online and bitch about it?  Vote with your wallet.

I don't know, it's just been gnawing at me all day.  I'm sick and fucking tired of people being offended at every little thing, and feeling like they have the right to make the offender change their ways as a result.

[TaintedAndDelish]

I think the problem here is that you don't want to glorify the man and accidentally encourage others to do the same. Yes, that sounds a little retarded and like someone old people would say. Well, I'm old, so I'll say it.  Regardless of what the actual article says, by putting this guy on the cover of Rolling Stones, you are making him famous.

When I was a teen I would have rolled my eyes If I head someone say this. I know better now.

[Question Mark]

I think the problem here is that you don't want to glorify the man and accidentally encourage others to do the same. Yes, that sounds a little retarded and like someone old people would say. Well, I'm old, so I'll say it.  Regardless of what the actual article says, by putting this guy on the cover of Rolling Stones, you are making him famous.

When I was a teen I would have rolled my eyes If I head someone say this. I know better now.

But he's already famous (well, infamous), and only an idiot would think that Rolling Stone is glorifying him.  I think people are rightfully still a bit sore after the bombings, and since it's been a while since the last terrorist attack, they were getting all riled up into their patriotic, AMERICA STRONK attitudes, and this "controversy" is stirring up some of those still-smoldering passions months after the attack.

People in comfortable lives are always looking for something to bitch about and to blame for all of the decay in the world, and this suits both purposes.

[Driskoll]

I do agree with the article you provided in some respects, as the photo of Tsarnaev does kind of make him look like a rock star. Even if they are not intentionally glorifying him, he is now getting more attention for committing a truly disgusting act. I can see why people who regularly read the magazine would be mad to see his face on it all of the sudden. This isn't the first time the magazine has done something like this though, the other instance being a cover page featuring Charles Manson. (OJ Simpson doesn't count, as that cover was done well before the murders of Nicole Simpson and Ronald Goldman occurred).

[Evil Tim]

From what I understand about this certain topic, the reason people are upset is because Dzhokhar is cast in a sympathetic light in the article, like he himself was a victim.  I can't really put anything else in on it, but me personally I think it was kind of an odd choice for them to use a photo that almost makes him look like James Franco.  I know they have to sell magazines just on cover value alone but they had to know this was going to stir the pot.  Maybe that's what they were counting on.

[Callie Del Noire]

Well I am split.

I get why they are doing it. Ultimately, to sell mags.

But I think that they are trying to bring home one point. Till the jury is is.. he has the presumption of innocence.

You don't back the people like Marissa Alexander who presents a sympathetic victim getting hammered for an extreme sentence when a much lesser charge should have been brought in against her. You have to cover the odious and obnoxious along with the innocent appearing.

Just like the American Nazi's march in Skoie, Ill was defended to protect everyone's right to assemble.

You don't have to like it.. but till the Jury foreman reads the verdict.. he's presumed innocent till you prove otherwise.

Journalists have a great responsibility to consider that than the layman.

[Question Mark]

Well I am split.

I get why they are doing it. Ultimately, to sell mags.

But I think that they are trying to bring home one point. Till the jury is is.. he has the presumption of innocence.

You don't back the people like Marissa Alexander who presents a sympathetic victim getting hammered for an extreme sentence when a much lesser charge should have been brought in against her. You have to cover the odious and obnoxious along with the innocent appearing.

Just like the American Nazi's march in Skoie, Ill was defended to protect everyone's right to assemble.

You don't have to like it.. but till the Jury foreman reads the verdict.. he's presumed innocent till you prove otherwise.

Journalists have a great responsibility to consider that than the layman.

Pretty much agree with everything here.

RS has a duty to sell its mags, and if they do it in a way that offends a bunch of people, well, that's their prerogative.

However, it is important to remember that Tsarnaev is innocent until proven guilty, like any other American accused of crimes.

[Callie Del Noire]

Pretty much agree with everything here.

RS has a duty to sell its mags, and if they do it in a way that offends a bunch of people, well, that's their prerogative.

However, it is important to remember that Tsarnaev is innocent until proven guilty, like any other American accused of crimes.

Unfortunately, since 9/11, I've see more and more 'rule of fear' and less and less 'rule of law' in the public media, government actions and public opinion. The first two shape the later and the later guides the direction of the first two. That leads to a viscous circle that only makes things more and more dire if we don't respect our own laws.

And in so doing..we let Terrorists 'win'.

But what do I know? I was called a 'pinko' for saying that we shouldn't let 9/11 guide us into an atrocity like the Patriot Act.

[Ephiral]

And in so doing..we let Terrorists 'win'.

But what do I know? I was called a 'pinko' for saying that we shouldn't let 9/11 guide us into an atrocity like the Patriot Act.

Wiser people than me have said it before: Don't want the terrorists to win? Stop being terrorized. It doesn't matter how many bombs they set off, how many people they kill. If your reaction is to clean up, mourn, rebuild, and go about your business, they have lost.

Especially since, y'know, they are explicitly engaging in asymmetric economic warfare.

[Oniya]

They are also hardly the first magazine to be accused of 'glorifying' someone by putting them on the cover.  Time Magazine has had several 'Man of the Year' issues that fall into that category.  It's on the newsstands for a while, and then we move on.

[Neysha]

They could've chosen a less flattering picture.

[Beguile's Mistress]

Media history provides many examples of covers featuring monsters.  It is done to sell magazines, videos, movies, and advertising for television programs.

There is a lesson to be learned with that cover and the story inside.  The face of evil is not always one with reptilian eyes and fangs dripping with blood.  The face of evil can look innocent and handsome.  It can hide the monster underneath. 

[Callie Del Noire]

They could've chosen a less flattering picture.

Comes back to to Presumption of Innocence. You don't put the perp's booking photo up or the picture of him being hauled up the courtyard steps in chains and the yellow jump suit.

That was what the cover was trying to do. Show the person with a 'glamour shot' not a picture that makes you instantly say 'that's a scumbag'.

Personally.. I dislike the idea of the kid as a cover image.. but it's not my call. It's the editor and the publishers' call.

[Trieste]

Sure, they could have chosen a less flattering picture, but they didn't need to. The picture humanizes him, and reminds us that looks aren't everything. I was deeply affected by the Marathon bombing, and still feel the echoes of it. However, it behooves me and others like me to remember that there isn't a 'face of evil', per se.

Plus, it does touch on the fact that he is innocent until and unless the prosecution can prove his guilt.

[Callie Del Noire]

Sure, they could have chosen a less flattering picture, but they didn't need to. The picture humanizes him, and reminds us that looks aren't everything. I was deeply affected by the Marathon bombing, and still feel the echoes of it. However, it behooves me and others like me to remember that there isn't a 'face of evil', per se.

Plus, it does touch on the fact that he is innocent until and unless the prosecution can prove his guilt.

And that is why I support RS doing it.. or to quote Voltaire: 'I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.'

I heard that a long long time ago, I think the first time was in a documentary on the Nazi party's attempt to march in Skoie. It never really hit till I enlisted and it was a quote put out in one of our leadership classes. We, the military, don't set policy.. or shouldn't, we simply must obey lawful orders and respect the constitution and bill of rights.

Of course I've always been of a more 'free' outlook than 'regulation' outlook. My take on the last decade and change is we've let too much fear rule us, but then my first direct experience with a terror act was almost three decades before most of Americas.

[Ephiral]

When public discourse is already so incredibly heavily-biased against someone, it strikes me as a failure of journalistic integrity to not present the other side. As-is, I honestly don't see how it's even remotely possible that his trial will be fair.

Also, it's, y'know, Rolling Stone. "Make this guy look like a rock star" is their house style.

The lesson I'm taking away from all of this: Despite the vast amount of bitching, most people's problem isn't that the media are biased. It's that they're not biased in ways the speaker likes.

[Callie Del Noire]

Agreed Ephiral, and I think that RS has a history of bringing out things in way that angers folks, because they hope that when the 'you fuckers' screaming moment is done the folks they CAN reach will think about it. Consider what they did, what they wrote about and start thinking.

Some folks can't be reached.. but some of the folks that get pissed off will cool down and consider things. And will think afterwards.

I admit some of the most interesting reads in articles that got me thinking weren't always from Time, Newsweek, or such but from mags like RS (and yes..even playboy) that I don't buy and read religously. Some of Hunter Thompson articles got me thinking. Didn't agree with what he said anymore than I did with some of the things I read in Malcolm X's 20 questions interview in Playboy.. but they gave me a differing viewpoint. Even more interesting was Arafat's interview.

[Oniya]

They could've chosen a less flattering picture.

That worked so well for Time Magazine, after all.

[Retribution]

I agree with what has been posted here as I ponder it. Though I do rather prefer the way John Lennon's killer has been handled. As Sir Paul refers to him as "he who shall not be named" it is talked about but there is a camp that refuses to utter his name. I am not sure that really has any effect especially with this type of crime that was ostensibly not done for the notoriety as opposed to say John Hinckley who listed trying to catch the attention of Jody Foster as his motive.

Rolling Stone certainly has the right to put whoever they like on the cover and depict them in whatever light they wish. I just always wonder how many of these mass killers commit crimes in a large part for their fifteen minutes. But as well covered as the world is today they are going to get their fifteen no matter if they are on the cover of a magazine or not.

[Neysha]

That worked so well for Time Magazine, after all.

I don't see how they're applicable comparisons.

From your article, it didn't report much fallout from Newsweeks similar but less racist mugshot.

[Oniya]

Time magazine went with the 'deliberately make it look worse' angle and got lambasted for it.  Newsweek just printed the picture without modification with no fall-out.  If RS had gone and used a picture intending to make him 'not look good', they'd be doing the same sort of dubious reporting.

[Neysha]

Time magazine went with the 'deliberately make it look worse' angle and got lambasted for it.  Newsweek just printed the picture without modification with no fall-out.  If RS had gone and used a picture intending to make him 'not look good', they'd be doing the same sort of dubious reporting.

I don't think the Newsweek cover was flattering either of OJ Simpson.

And I find the idea that using most any other picture of Tsarnaev would somehow be considered dubious reporting. I'm fairly certain there are other pictures of him they couldve chosen that werent as thoughtless. But they went with the most glamorous one so they can sell more magazines, which is fine. I'm not going to blame a media company for cashing in on a tragedy but no reason not to point out their callousness.

[Ephiral]

And I find the idea that using most any other picture of Tsarnaev would somehow be considered dubious reporting. I'm fairly certain there are other pictures of him they couldve chosen that werent as thoughtless. But they went with the most glamorous one so they can sell more magazines, which is fine. I'm not going to blame a media company for cashing in on a tragedy but no reason not to point out their callousness.

I... sincerely hope I am misunderstanding you here. You seem to be saying that anything that can paint him in a sympathetic light is obviously the product of thoughtless callousness, and that a more reasonable approach would be to continue to demonize him.

This is the exact same logic which brought us "They hate our freedoms!". Popular ideas don't need defending. I am quite sure that a lot of thought was put into their choce of cover photo, and they went with one that was in keeping with both the house style and the article's (alleged; I haven't read it) stance that he was essentially a kid who got some screwed up ideas in his head and made a tragic decision because of it, not an evil monster.

He is a human being, and one who has not yet been found guilty of any crime. What good can it possibly do to treat him as an evil mutant who obviously just wanted to destroy everything we hold dear for the sake of destruction?

[Callie Del Noire]

I don't think the Newsweek cover was flattering either of OJ Simpson.

And I find the idea that using most any other picture of Tsarnaev would somehow be considered dubious reporting. I'm fairly certain there are other pictures of him they couldve chosen that werent as thoughtless. But they went with the most glamorous one so they can sell more magazines, which is fine. I'm not going to blame a media company for cashing in on a tragedy but no reason not to point out their callousness.

Thing is.. they didn't EDIT it. It's like the photo that TV guide did a LOOONG time ago of Oprah during her 'diet success' phase. It wasn't her body and they took it into the shorts for trying.

[Neysha]

I... sincerely hope I am misunderstanding you here. You seem to be saying that anything that can paint him in a sympathetic light is obviously the product of thoughtless callousness, and that a more reasonable approach would be to continue to demonize him.

This is the exact same logic which brought us "They hate our freedoms!". Popular ideas don't need defending. I am quite sure that a lot of thought was put into their choce of cover photo, and they went with one that was in keeping with both the house style and the article's (alleged; I haven't read it) stance that he was essentially a kid who got some screwed up ideas in his head and made a tragic decision because of it, not an evil monster.

He is a human being, and one who has not yet been found guilty of any crime. What good can it possibly do to treat him as an evil mutant who obviously just wanted to destroy everything we hold dear for the sake of destruction?

I'm not even going to dignify this with a rebuttal. It seems so out of left field it baffles me.

How my suggestion of using another picture of him somehow leads to your response... I have no idea.

Again to reiterate... I find no problem with the unedited Newsweek mugshot of OJ Simpson. I have no problem with Bin Laden on the cover of Time. I might have a problem with, if during the OJ trial they instead showed a picture of OJ receiving his Heisman or scoring a touchdown or otherwise being celebratory. Not a big deal... but id be irked that no regard was given to the victims.