Does Rolling Stone’s latest cover, featuring Boston bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, go too far?

[MoufOfKhaos]

Rolling Stone has been fighting to stay relevant since the 80's, so I'm not surprised.

[/in before "he's so cute they should let me fuck him" posts]

 

[Beachguyj]

I was thinking The Rolling Stones released a new album with his picture on the cover

 

[palbert]

.... [/in before "he's so cute they should let me fuck him" posts]

Me too.

It's just a cover.

 

[nycguydowntown]

they put Charles Manson on the cover too---the article is about how a guy like this---who loved capitalism and american stuff, I mean they had fine clothes and drove a Mercedes---and seemed to be assimilated into our culture--was so quickly radicalized---and turned into a delusional monster---think it is relevant to note how dumb and misguided these terrorists are and how quickly then can do a 360---and be aware of it, it's a story that needs to be told.

 

[80KGold]

These guys actually went and glorified a terrorist... wow.

With the cover itself, or with the contents of the article?

 

[HunterM]

Rolling Stone has been fighting to stay relevant since the 80's, so I'm not surprised.

I know no one who reads the Rolling Stone.

 

[darden]

calling him a monster on the cover is glorifying him?

 

[hylas]

desperate and in poor taste.

 

[ronboy]

I used to be an avid Rolling Stone subscriber.

I had subscribed to it since the 1970s (I was a teenager).

Over the years, RS had lost relevance for me. I still appreciated the political articles, but I found myself losing touch with the music aspect of it.

I dropped my subscription three years ago. No regrets.....

As for the cover...meh! He's having his 15 minutes of notoriety.

 

[The Fly]

"Fell into radical Islam and became a monster". How the hell does someone just "fall" into radical anything?

 

[eastofeden]

Rolling Stone covers...grrrrrrr...I wrote a letter t them years ago and cancelled my subscription because Chaka Khan had never been on a cover...but this fucking terrorist gets a cover?

 

[borg69unimatrix]

My problem with it is the message they're indirectly putting out there to the other terrorists, as IMO, they made him up to look like a Jim Morrison type Rock Star/celebrity on the cover, and he's anything BUT that.

 

[m1thousand]

Its a photo.
I dont think he was thinking "bombing people will get me on Rolling Stone"
If they wanted to glorify him they would have put hiom in a Patty Hearst pose with a bomb in his hand

 

[fetaby]

We live in interesting times...

 

[rareboy]

meh

I remember the Manson cover.

This is no different.

 

[journo25]

Disgraceful. The magazine has given all terrorists precisely what they crave. Shame on you, Rolling Stone.

 

[blackbeltninja]

Is it the style of the cover, or his presence on it which you guys believe to be in poor taste?

His presence shouldn't be an issue - news is news.

-d-

 

[MassRuss]

They should have gone with a different cover, & another article to go with the article documenting (with only the "known" facts) of why this nondescript kid went from college student to cold blooded bomber, in the name of a religion for which till this incident, he never showed any major interest.

The other article should have included stories about the 5 fatalities (of the bombing & the policeman) & about the victims & how they are coping with their injuries & memories of terror/horror they experienced @ the hands of these 2 misguided fools.

I would have either placed the 5 people killed or a collage of the victims on the cover.

I'm sure an issue like that would have sold, without the accompanying controversy

 

[maxpowr9]

What's your point TC?

 

[80KGold]

I just listened to an interview with the managing editor of Rolling Stone. He said that some of their story is devoted to exploration of how Tsarnaev--who is demographically similar to many of the readers of the magazine, and who was well-regarded among people who knew him in Cambridge--became a terrorist.

To an extent, his rationalization resonates with me. I mean, I've always been extremely curious about people's motives for horrendous acts--especially when the horrendous acts seem to represent a sudden shift in attitude and behavior.

Also, apparently, Stop & Shop, CVS, and Walgreen's have decided not to sell this issue of the magazine. I'm uncomfortable with that decision. Why not quietly stock the magazine and allow consumers to overlook it/ decide not to buy it?

Honestly? I don't read Rolling Stone regularly. I doubt I'd have read this issue. Now, though, I'm very curious. I'm sure I'm not the only person in the U.S. whose curiosity has been piqued by the controversy.