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

[Telstra]

I don't think when the islamist look at that picture they will suddenly become more islamist or want to follow his foot step.

 

[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 4 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 4 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

Corrected to 4 fatalities

 

[MassRuss]

View attachment 970074

What's your point TC?

Hitler was Time Magazine's Man of the Year in 1938, before the general public was aware of just what kind of megalomaniac/mass murderer he would become. Remember he had just stared down Britain & France in Munich, & gained everything he wanted from the Czechs (their disappearance as a country) without firing a shot. And he'd annexed Austria, the Rhineland, negated the Versailles Treaty, began rearming, in doing the later, he restored Germany's self image (obviously not for long) & began reducing unemployment. Of course, he was persecuting the Jews, gypsies, homosexuals. killing the disabled, killing or imprisoning his opponents, but those things weren't known by most of the world till during or after WWII.

Tsarnaev is the suspected terrorist, in jail, standing accused. Hitler in 38 was the Chancellor (dictator) of Germany, not accused by (most) of the world of anything.

The covers, as the Brits would say, are chalk & cheese

 

[MTLDude]

In this day and age, money talks, so if you are not happy about the content of the cover of a magazine,do not buy it, that is the best way to let the publisher your opinion!

 

[Just_Believe18]

It's like they brought a professional photographer and hairstylist and photographed Tsarnaev for the magazine cover. Yeah, I get it. It's a silly glorification of a terrorist by showcasing him, rockstar style, on their cover. Even if that wasn't their intent.

 

[80KGold]

The following people have appeared on the cover of Time, and/or Newsweek, and/or New Yorker, and/or People, etc.:

Jeffrey Dahmer
Osama bin Laden
David Koresh
Timothy McVeigh

Also, look at the tagline of this cover featuring Hitler:

The new Chancellor has lots to say about liberals and socialists. And don't get him started on the Jews! Is he serious or just having fun?

 

[operafan]

The thing I don't like about the cover is that it makes him look romantic. Compare to this image of Percy Shelley, for instance

 

[JayHawk]

I think they did exactly what they wanted to do - generate discussion.

However, i dont think ANY of his compatriots are motivated by being on the cover of a western obsession with stars type magazine. So the outrage is just misplaced in my humble opinion. I think they also desired to showcase that he was good looking, normal looking and could be anyone you see everyday. That was the point. Unfortunately people cant seem to grasp it.

I dont read Rolling Stone just like I dont read any other magazine (does anyone really actually receive printed copies in the mail these days?) but, I have read Matt Tabbei quite a few times. All of the RS journalists are top notch writers and the piece on 'The Bomber' does anything but glorify the terrorist.

 

[The Fly]

I haven't read RS in 20 years, and this marketing won't lure me back, but I'm not the demographic they're seeking. I don't see anything wrong with it. The fact that some outlets refuse to sell it I find a bit more concerning.

 

[Ninja108]

While stores shouldn't ban it,I have no qualms about not buying this issue and encouraging others to do the same.
One of the main reasons people do things like is for attention,and Rolling Stone gave it to him.

 

[MMMonsterBoy]

Am I the only one who doesn't, at all, see this as "glorifying" him - as people claim? They called him a monster. He isn't being heralded as a savior by RS or anything grand.

Hiding his face and calling him "he who shall not be named" doesn't erase the event nor does it erase him. I suppose people do not want him to be 'famous,' but the second his name was revealed as the Boston Bomber he reached that type of level.

Were people this upset about George Zimmerman's face and name rising to prominence as of late? Shoud journalists avoid naming murderers, rapists, terrorists etc etc? I don't really believe in this type of censorship, though I understand how his face alone could cause turmoil for those truly affected by the BMB's.

While this definitely could have been done in a more "tasteful" way, it doesn't change a thing.

 

[Ellybelly909]

Here's a suggestion: Don't buy it!

RS calls him a monster, as many have pointed out. Talk about making a mountain out of a mole hill.

Totally agree with above poster mmm....

 

[refujiunderground]

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.

LMAO @ "he's hot, he's sexy, and he's dead".

but i gotta admit, naughty. the dude on the cover is very cute. doesn't change the fact that he's evil though.

 

[MoufOfKhaos]

Am I the only one who doesn't, at all, see this as "glorifying" him - as people claim? They called him a monster. He isn't being heralded as a savior by RS or anything grand.

Hiding his face and calling him "he who shall not be named" doesn't erase the event nor does it erase him. I suppose people do not want him to be 'famous,' but the second his name was revealed as the Boston Bomber he reached that type of level.

Were people this upset about George Zimmerman's face and name rising to prominence as of late? Shoud journalists avoid naming murderers, rapists, terrorists etc etc? I don't really believe in this type of censorship, though I understand how his face alone could cause turmoil for those truly affected by the BMB's.

While this definitely could have been done in a more "tasteful" way, it doesn't change a thing.

Okay, now what I put in bold is just silly - Zimmerman isn't being and hasn't been used to "sell" controversy, as is the case now with Tsarnaev(or as was pointed out, Manson was). It's shock value for the sake of shock value - but in the interest of fairness, I would have said the EXACT same thing had they put Trayvons' picture on the cover. I don't see how the two events compare - and while they go on to call the guy a monster, the story is really another rise and fall piece, something that really would be a better fit for, say, Time. But that's my OPINION.

My question is really, why is this magazine seeming to become a low-rent version of Marilyn Mansons' shtick circa 1996? And why does it seem like bemoaning such a thing is all of a sudden seen as needless whining for the sake of it? I'm already not buying it, but does that all of a sudden mean I have to shut up about it?

 

[Just_Believe18]

^ You should read into emoticons to detect sarcasm.

 

[fetaby]

Nope.

This is condescension--->

This is sarcasm...

 

[MoufOfKhaos]

Arguing about what the definition of "is" is, gentlemen?

 

[m1thousand]

http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/today/52506976

 

[freefall]

I don't know the purpose of the magazine exhibiting the man on the cover, but as controversial as what they want to achieve, most people will think of glorification - as what Rolling Stones usually do with their cover models.

And don't laugh, but for some reason, I feel the background colour is wrong. I feel that the controversial target would be better relayed if they used strong vivid colours or dark turbid colours.

 

[Just_Believe18]

I read into the exact emoticon you presented. An eye roll is more apt for detecting condescension, not sarcasm.

I appreciate that you read into the "exact" emoticon that I posted, and even italicized for emphasis of how I should not use it. However, I think I've been doing this long enough to handle posting opinions to a topic without worrying over being critiqued on how I use my keyboard. Thanks.