The August 3rd Rolling Stone cover which features the face of Boston bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has been the subject of public outrage. 
Considering I was born and raised in Massachusetts my Facebook news feed is likely filled with more criticism of the cover than those not from the area, regardless, I think such outrage is in need of a reality check. Some that are offended by the cover claim that it sends the wrong message to children. Others claim that the picture selected for the cover portrays Tsarnaev as a “rock star”. Ed Kelly, president of the Professional Fire Fighters of Massachusetts, called the cover “insulting.” Boston mayor Thomas Menino called the cover “a total disgrace“. To my ears, neither the claims nor any of their justifications seem to have much force. In what follows I will provide some reasons for those who are offended to reconsider their concerns.
First, Rolling Stone has done this before, that is, post a picture of suspected and/or convicted terrorist or murderer. They did it in the 70’s with Charles Manson. There was no outcry then, why now? 
In general, magazines do it all the time. Remember when Timothy Mcveigh committed the horrendous Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 and dawned the cover of Time? That picture was also a personal shot and not a mug shot (see below). So, why the sudden burst of moral outrage with a suspected terrorist on the cover of a popular magazine? I am at a loss. Especially when the right corner of the cover calls him the ‘Bomber’ even though he has not yet been convicted. This suggests to me that the magazine is not attempting to glamorize the suspect.
Some have claimed that putting him on the cover “will create a sense that this admitted murderer is appealing and if you are considering committing a crime it could bring you notoriety”. In response, and to be clear, Tsarnev has not “admitted” to murder. He has pleaded not guilty to the charges that were brought against him. And, it’s a known fact that if you commit a crime in this day in age you will get extensive media coverage. Making the cover of Rolling Stone does not seem to add much to that.
That said, even if he admitted to the murders I think it is important for the public to see his face. Some people have criticized Rolling Stone for the picture itself, as it makes him look like a ‘real’ person. I, on the other hand, think that it’s important for the public to see him as he looked in real life and not ONLY as he looked in mug shots or right before the attacks. He is a ‘real’ person. He had friends, hobbies, and the like. The face of a “monster” can and oftentimes DOES resemble people we encounter daily. It’s important for the public to realize that. Once realized, I think a lot of misplaced prejudice against certain ‘looks’ could go by the wayside.
I understand that the topic is sensitive, however, contrary to the claim made by Ed Kelly in a recent CNN interview that “…it disturbs us that our media chooses to celebrate it”, I don’t see this as a celebration. In fact I see this as a reflection and investigation on what went wrong for Tsarnaev and what can go wrong for other vulnerable teens. Kelly told CNN that “using Tsarnaev’s booking photo might have been one thing, but a photo that shows “the innocence of youth” gives the wrong message”. I don’t think that it does. The message I got from the cover was one of sadness, not of celebration. How could someone who looks like an ordinary citizen commit such acts of hatred and carnage? It’s one thing to see his mug shot, he looks different almost scary, but quite another to see him as others saw him before the attacks. Seeing him as a ‘real’ person is important. It’s important for U.S. citizens to realize that terrorists come in all shapes and sizes. They come from all age groups, skin colors, and, some even look attractive. In response to the public outcry Rolling Stone issued a statement, below is a quote from that statement:
“The cover story we are publishing this week falls within the traditions of journalism and Rolling Stone’s long-standing commitment to serious and thoughtful coverage of the most important political and cultural issues of our day…”The fact that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is young, and in the same age group as many of our readers, makes it all the more important for us to examine the complexities of this issue and gain a more complete understanding of how a tragedy like this happens.”
I couldn’t agree more. The photo does not glamorize Tsarnaev what it does is show him as a ‘real’ person. It humanizes someone who we all want to look at as less than human. But, the fact that he is human should open our eyes.
One last point. This young man has not yet been convicted of the crime. Though I share the public opinion of his guilt as the evidence against him seems daunting, he has not yet been found guilty. And, given that there has been so many negative photos posted it seems only fair to post photos showing a different side of him (though I’m not sure I see a different side when the word Bomber is placed on the side of the photo). Not because seeing him as a human will get him off the hook but because everyone deserves a fair trial. Pictures of the accused should not be one-sided this will only be used as ‘evidence’ for conspiracy theorists looking for reasons to spin a story about how Tsarnaev was treated with a lack of fairness.
To recap, I do not agree with the outrage directed at Rolling Stone Magazine for putting Tsarnaev on the cover. I think it is important for the public to see Tsarnaev as he saw himself. The piece didn’t celebrate Tsarnaev nor did the cover. The cover clearly states “Bomber” and calls him a “monster”. Given that he has not been convicted this can’t read as anything other than a genuine piece of journalism trying to uncover what it was that went wrong in this boys life for him to perform such a disgusting act.
I would love to hear from those who are outraged in the comment thread so that I can better understand where it is coming from. As of now, I’m at a loss.
A Philosopher's Take 
jonolan
July 18, 2013
I think that the pic combined with the apologetics of the title blurb which essentially excuses him and blames other’s failures for his being a monster is a blatant attempt to make him something of a sympathetic character and that’s not going to set well with most people.
LikeLike
Justin Caouette
July 19, 2013
I’m not seeing the “apologetics” of the title blurb. His blame was not mitigated, it’s part of his story. They played a role in him being a monster. Look at the lives of most killers, rarely will you see a perfect life. I don’t see them trying to make him a sympathetic character, the word “monster” in LARGE letters is anything but sympathetic.
LikeLike
jonolan
July 20, 2013
Ummm….”Failed by his family.” What is that but a attempt to put the blame on his family instead of him? Or, at the very least, that is how many will instantly read it.
And sure they can paint him as sympathetic because the title alludes to his being turned into a monster due to others’ failures instead of his own – just a poor victim of bad parenting and a nation that had no use for him….
Fortunately it’s almost moot. Many major retailers have refused to carry that issue of Rolling Stone.
LikeLike
Michael Kwang Hwang
July 18, 2013
he didn’t need to be the cover though.. I understand the authors of journalism but they could’ve had that picture on page number w.e but a cover shot is completely different just cuz rolling stone put Charles manson on the cover didn’t make it correct back then. a cover shot is a big deal to people readers and the person on the cover.
LikeLike
Justin Caouette
July 19, 2013
Regarding him on the cover, it was quite a story. It gripped the city and the nation, doesn’t make much sense to put it in the middle. We put top stories on the cover, right?
What about the front page covers he was on right after the incident. Should those have been page referenced also? Where do we draw the line here. Justice will be served, hopefully, so he can enjoy his “fame” in a 8×8 cell.
LikeLike
Sandy
July 18, 2013
I was outraged as well. However, I do understand what you are saying. I have to admit you have a point.
LikeLike
Justin Caouette
July 19, 2013
Thanks, Sandy. If he was making money on this or if he submitted the picture to Rolling Stone asking that that be his picture I would be outraged too. But since that wasn’t the case I was not in the slightest taken back by it. I had an older relative say to me “what a shame, he was a good looking boy”. If anything, the cover did it’s job. It made people see him as human rather than something else. People are capable of terrible things and they all don’t look like what we see in the movies or in mug shots.
LikeLike
Albert Dubreuil
July 18, 2013
I’ll forget that I work a block down Boylston St from where the bombs went off. I’ll also put aside the Bomber caption. What’s wrong with putting Jahar on the cover of Rolling Stone magazine is that this cover is reserved for cool people.
Your Time magazine example isn’t relevant because there are always news topics on the cover of time. What is most relevant is the 1973 song by Dr Hook that defines what it means to be On the Cover of the Rolling Stone. Said song also makes the 1970 Manson cover irrelevant to the discussion. All you have as back up is that for 30 years Rolling Stone’s cover has been about “who is cool right now.”
I can’t recall a recent RS cover to feature anyone NOT cool. (No I didn’t comb the archives.) There was the Al Gore cover that was discussed mostly because of a bulge. That’s all I got for the bottom of the coolness scale.
I realize the content of RS has many great news pieces. (I like Matt Taibbi’s pieces the best.) But if we are just talking about the cover of THIS magazine, the point is, “This person is cool and you should like him/her.”
Going forward RS will certainly not stick with their option to use intriguing people on the cover, such as Aaron Hernandez, but will go back to giving us the Cool people. That’s what makes this wrong: Jahar will blend in with Jay Z and Bob Dylan in the 30 years since Dr Hook sang about how cool it is to be on the cover of the Rolling Stone.
LikeLike
Justin Caouette
July 19, 2013
Thanks for your take, Dubreuil. A few thoughts.
Al, I never saw the cover as ONLY for cool people. I often see the cover and say to myself “what a clown”. Often times the media’s cool guy of the month is on the cover but surely that’s not it (admittedly, I haven’t canvassed the covers either).
Regarding Dr. Hook. Interesting point. But that’s HIS take on what it mean’s to be on the cover. I assume that the magazine has never defined their cover policy in that way. Further, I think Hook is referring to making the cover on merits of music ability or something like that. It’s obvious that Tsarnaev is not making the cover for that reason. They put news on the cover, I know that. It’s not as regular as a musician, not even close, but they do do it.
I don’t think they chose Tsarnaev because he was “intriguing”. I think they chose him because the incident he was involved in gripped a city and a nation.
LikeLike
Anonymous
July 19, 2013
Quick reply: Dr Hook’s song redefined what being on the cover of RS means, not just to musicians and their abilities. That song isn’t just his thoughts as it gets covered frequently and referenced in films (Almost Famous written by a former RS writer). Whether or not a bearded guy somewhere thinks the cover boy is a clown, there are many more people who find the cover boy cool and someone to admire, every time. RS has to be cognizant of this as made clear by the fact that their website sells poster size versions of any RS cover. (Does TIME do that.) It is just feeding the #FreeJahar folks what they want: some kind of folk hero. Maybe they even sent five copies to his mother.
LikeLike
Justin Caouette
July 20, 2013
The Dr. Hook song implies musical fame. Not fame for being a monster and killing people.
I find it hard to believe that more people than not think that ALL people on the cover of Rolling Stone are cool (they only have 1.4 million in circulation). I think you’re giving Rolling Stone WAYYYYY too much credit. Further, people are going to find someone to emulate regardless. This kid’s face has been on every news station for the past few months. I highly doubt that a Rolling Stone cover will suddenly make someone want to bomb a city or be like him. And, if it does, that mentally disturbed individual will find his/her fix elsewhere.
I think the #freejahar folks are being fed by the reactions and outrage that this cover is receiving.
Giving the kid a cover and calling him a monster on the cover is not glamorizing him. It’s taking him at his best “looks wise” and calling him a monster on that front.
LikeLike
Aeon J. Skoble
July 18, 2013
Apologetics? The cover refers to him as a monster. Nothing about it evokes sympathy.
LikeLike
Justin Caouette
July 19, 2013
I completely agree!
LikeLike
jjhiii24
July 18, 2013
Justin,
Thank you for giving your readers an opportunity to discuss this important issue. I think you may have gone a bit too far in your characterization of what is NOT wrong with the cover, but at least you present an opposing view to the mainstream reactionary responses which unfortunately are mostly vitriolic.
Your reasoning, in this case, is comparatively inadequate to the judgement used by the editors of Rolling Stone. It’s perfectly alright with me that people have different views on particular subjects, and I would not immediately dismiss as inappropriate the decision to put the image of the alleged suspect in the Boston bombing on the cover of an international magazine, but in this case, the editors CLEARLY erred in utilizing that particular image.
Your characterization of that image as showing “sadness,” and not celebration is inaccurate and completely not the point. The fact that this young man’s slide into radical fundamentalism was at the prompting of his BROTHER is truly sad, and everything about the Boston bombing is sad, and awful, and terrible. The image used in this case does not show that the suspect is a typical young person. He is NOT a typical young person. He is a suspect in a horrible crime, and to show him as a typical young person sends a terrible message that all you have to do is kill and maim people for no good reason, and you can be on the cover of Rolling Stone.
It is a legitimate news story, and important to address, but the editors of Rolling Stone were not thinking, “….hmmmm.. this needs to be on the cover as an important news story.” They were thinking… “you know…if we put THIS image on the cover…everyone will be talking about it and we will sell lots of magazines.” I would be interested to know just how many people purchased this issue, as opposed to how many people REFUSED to buy it.
They could have chosen, in the same spirit of the issues YOU used to illustrate this blog post, an image which showed how AWFUL the terrorists in question were. Both the Manson image, and the McVeigh image are appropriate because they show them in the light of TERROR and madness, not as a normal handsome person. Say what you will, gesticulate in whatever manner you wish, but that image is flattering and typical of someone who is nice or who did something nice, or who is a musician who accomplished something.
Your suggestion that this image is okay because this person has not yet been convicted of a crime is ludicrous. Just because the trial has not yet taken place is ridiculous as a justification of showing him in such a flattering light. NO ONE is looking at the words on the page which call him a bomber. There is no need to point out that he is one of the bombers. He is one of two people who planted the bombs in Boston, and we know this because it is on surveillance video. The point is, the image is flattering, not sad, not newsworthy…flattering.
Whatever else may be true in this case, I find myself in agreement with those who suggest that Rolling Stone aught to concentrate on MUSIC, and MUSICIANS, and people who make news in the world of MUSIC. Just because you can sell more magazines by being controversial doesn’t justify being controversial. It’s all about sales and revenue.
And THAT….is what is TRULY sad…….John H.
LikeLike
Justin Caouette
July 19, 2013
Let me try to clear a few things up.
First, you say “Your characterization of that image as showing “sadness,” and not celebration is inaccurate and completely not the point”. In response, I don’t think the image itself shows sadness. The boy is not weeping, etc. The sadness I am referring to is with regards to the way a boy that looks so innocent could slide into the mindset that allowed him to commit those atrocious acts.
Second, you say “The image used in this case does not show that the suspect is a typical young person. He is NOT a typical young person”. In response, he WAS a typical young person. He posted that picture like other young people do. By taking a “selfie”. That’s the point he was SEEMINGLY like all others and look what happened. Posting another mug shot allows us to separate him from everyone else. But the fact is that many are capable of and often succumb to radical ideologies. It’s something we should all be aware of and this picture brings that point to light.
Third, you say “Your suggestion that this image is okay because this person has not yet been convicted of a crime is ludicrous.” In response, I am not saying the image was OKAY because he was not yet convicted. I thought it was important to bring up the point that he was not yet convicted yet all we have seen are mug shots and blood shots from his capture. The purpose of bringing that point to light was not to say FOR THAT REASON the picture is ok. I gave several reasons why I think the photo was fine, and needed in certain respects. The mention of his guilt not being conferred was mainly to bring out the point that everyone deserves a fair trial and conspiracy theorists who will say this kid was set up (I have heard a few saying it already) will be fueled by the fact that the media has only shared the mug shot style images.
Fourth, you say “NO ONE is looking at the words on the page which call him a bomber.”. That’s just false. People in this comment thread have commented on the words as being “apologetic”. I too read the words the first time I saw the piece. I’m sure I was not the only one.
Regarding sales and revenue. I agree. But hundreds of magazine and news stations have made money and fame on this case and every other tragedy dating back to the introduction of news media. When the towers fell in NYC that’s all you saw on newsstands around the nation and the world. Should we not give news and share pictures and stories of those involved out of fear? I think that’s a bit paranoid!
LikeLike
jjhiii24
July 19, 2013
Justin,
You must have known that your commentary would elicit some degree of opposition from those who feel differently than you do, and whether or not your intention was to initiate a civil discussion on the subject, I am glad to see that you are at least taking a hard look at the matter. So many of the responses to the awful events we endure these days end up just making things worse, and your responses here are at least thoughtful.
You may look at that image and feel sadness because the young man WAS a typical teen at one point before he became a murderous thug, and yes, that is sad an all that, but he knew what he was doing when he did it and no matter how he got there, he deserves nothing but justice. I’m okay with you having a different opinion from mine on this, and I am not paranoid about what a news story might inspire generally, but Rolling Stone deliberately published a controversial image to illustrate their story in order to sell magazines, and your comparison of THAT image to the September 11th images misses the point entirely. Whatever led this young man to become a murderer, now that he has become a murderer, he should be treated like a murderer and the story could have been illustrated without using an image of what he was BEFORE he became a murderer.
However you want to parse your words on this, you are defending the use of that image, and in spite of how it may illustrate some part of the story, using it was a deliberate act which was undertaken for the wrong reasons, and the editors or corporate decision makers (whoever it was that decided to use it) used poor judgement in my opinion.
You are the exception to the rule. Most people see only an image when they look at a magazine cover. Editors know this and the only “apologetics” I saw were the ones YOU put in your blog post. It is a free country, and I am glad for freedom of the press, but if YOUR loved one was murdered or maimed in the bombing, my guess is your view would be quite different.
LikeLike
Justin Caouette
July 19, 2013
Hi, jjhi24. Thanks for the response and for your kind words (“at least thoughtful”). I did hope to elicit a certain degree of opposition to my post. That was my purpose in writing it. To engage in a civil discussion about RS’s decision to use Tsarnaev and that particular image. Thus far, I have not had to edit many of the comments as there haven’t been too many personal attacks. Hopefully, it can continue that way.
As a general response to your last post, I agree that he deserves justice. And, that’s all he deserves. He deserves no celebrity. Everyone deserves justice, and I understand justice to be fairness. If I thought that Rolling Stone was trying to glamorize Tsarnaev I might feel a little differently. But I just don’t see that given the cover in it’s entirety.
I’m not seeing how the 9/11 coverage misses the point. The point was, or at least one of the points made against the cover, was that the photo glamorizes and brings fame to the suspect. The relevance to 9/11 was that aspiring sickos who want to wage terror on us would also see the coverage as evidence of the destruction that they are capable of. In both instances attention was given to a harmful act. That seems analagous, at least in certain respects, to the coverage of Tsarnaev.
You say ” Rolling Stone deliberately published a controversial image to illustrate their story in order to sell magazines, and your comparison of THAT image to the September 11th images misses the point entirely.” In response, and I mentioned this in my response to Adam, the mug shot photo wouldn’t have made as much sense to publish given the purpose of the article. The article was about how a seemingly “normal” teen became a MONSTER. Hence why the picture was not a dehumanizing one and more “normal”. Also, didn’t the editors of all the magazines that published pictures of the crumbling twin towers or of Osama Bin Laden do so in order to sell their product?
You say “However you want to parse your words on this, you are defending the use of that image”. In response: Absolutely! To be clear, I think the use of the image, given the context of the story coupled with the large print caption on the bottom was appropriate.
You say “using it (the image) was a deliberate act which was undertaken for the wrong reasons, and the editors or corporate decision makers (whoever it was that decided to use it) used poor judgement in my opinion.” In response–Given that we do not have the reasons why the image was used we should refrain from assuming that the act of choosing that image was done for the wrong reasons. It seems legitimate to assume, as I have, that the image was chosen because of the story that was written. It was a story about how that guy (pictured on the cover) became the guy we ALL saw in pictures (mug shot) plastered on every news station and newspaper in the country.
Lastly, you say ” It is a free country, and I am glad for freedom of the press, but if YOUR loved one was murdered or maimed in the bombing, my guess is your view would be quite different.”. In response, I have a family member who had a close friend injured in the attack. He lost both his legs. That said, he wasn’t a dear friend to me and was not part of my family so it didn’t hit too close to home (though it did happen near the offices of many of my dearest and closest friends because I grew up an hour from the site). To be honest, if it were one of my sons ( I have 2) that were murdered I would likely be uncomfortable with ANY media coverage. If anything, I think I would want to know why he did what he did and what led him to do it. If anything, I think the RS article has done a better job than most in trying to uncover those details and the photo in the context of how it was presented would likely have made me shake my head even more “how could HE, this normal looking kid, do such a thing”. But, luckily, my family was safe from this attack.
LikeLike
Xandman Sun (@xandersun)
July 18, 2013
I am outraged everytime I have to drive down Monument Avenue in Richmond with those stinking Confederate Generals who were fighting to enslave my people and wouldn’t think twice at summarily shooting to death an imprisoned black Union soldier fighting for freedom (as opposed to treating white soldiers as prisoners of war). Why do those white people get to be “humanized” with permanent statues and not a peep, but one Tsarnaev gets put on the cover of one issue of a rag, where at least that had the decency to call him a monster (I can assure you the plaques underneath those statues don’t say anything of the sort). We need to get over ourselves.
LikeLike
Justin Caouette
July 19, 2013
Interesting point Xandman (cool name).
LikeLike
Adam Benevides
July 19, 2013
I think you are out of your mind for saying 90% of what you said.You’re comments, although intelligent and artfully written, are perceived more antagonistic than prophetic. Do I think the cover was that bad? … Personally, no. But everyone has reason to be justifiably bullshit pissed especially because Rolling Stone knew if they print it, it would cause controversy, which sells the brand…. So yet one more capitalist corporation looking out for its bottom line at the expense of all the people who suffered from this tragedy. That’s why I can’t be too pissed about the photo…. It’s a judgment call they made and they have the liberty under our laws to do so, just as we have the right to reject their commerce. I agree with Bert that there is something about Rolling Stone that just emanates the image of “cool”. And let’s not forget that when Rolling Stone did publish the photos of Manson, there was a huge mass media following of people who were idolizing Manson and the helter skelter movement. (Also don’t forget Manson was an aspiring rock/folk singer, who commissioned his first murders in response to a record label rejection.) He was a pop idol to many sick rebellious teenagers. Therefore, I submit Rolling Stone has a history of embracing sensationalism at the expense of taste.
What irritates me, however, was your tone with respect to humanizing him… I understand our constitution very, very well and I will defend it fiercely. But don’t give me this he hasn’t been proven guilty yet, therefore we should think of him as the misunderstood boy who grew up next door bull shit. The writing is on the wall… or shall I say the boat’s ceiling. He and his brother, two very misguided and wicked persons, do not deserve a single bit of attention, notoriety, or sympathy… Period. Boston Strong – Boston Recovered and Over it.
To Xandman Sun: I hope you don’t always live in a world of black and white… You’ll miss the gray, which is the best part.
LikeLike
Justin Caouette
July 19, 2013
My comments were not intended to be prophetic, so I’m glad they didn’t come across that way. They were INTENDED to be antagonistic to those who found themselves outraged by the cover. For the record, I am defining antagonistic as “Showing or feeling active opposition to something”. I am opposed to condemning Rolling Stone for the cover and the intent of the piece was to tell you why.
Regarding the Manson cover, well, I forgot that he himself was a musician. Good point. But if I canvas the covers from the past I’m sure I can find some that deal with the news. Al mentioned Gore and I am sure there are others. The point is that they print news, and it makes the cover. They print bad guys (Manson) and they make the cover. I’m sure Chris Brown has made a cover or 2 after his women beating. Maybe he hasn’t. But he has made the cover elsewhere.
To your worry about humanizing Tsarnaev let me be clear as I think you have misunderstood. The importance of him being humanized was not for the sake of his fair trial. As I said in the piece – I think the evidence is “daunting” and he will be found guilty, just a matter of time. It’s not a HUGE deal that the media has ONLY posted mug shots and bloody shots. The importance of being humanized was for the public interest, and I will quote from my piece “He had friends, hobbies, and the like. The face of a “monster” can and oftentimes DOES resemble people we encounter daily. It’s IMPORTANT for the public to realize that. Once realized, I think a lot of misplaced prejudice against certain ‘looks’ could go by the wayside.”
It’s also worth mentioning that showing him as he was before the attacks makes sense for the article. The article chronicled how he transformed into the person seen in the mug shots. It wouldn’t make much sense to post the mug shot photo. The piece was meant as a profile of him in the past. That’s how he looked.
Regarding attention. Well, do you oppose news? When 9/11 occurred and the pictures of the towers were put up everywhere does this not publicize atrocious and disgusting acts of terror? Every tragedy that occurs people and news outlets make money. I don’t understand the sudden attack against RS. They are simply doing what news and media do. Giving us stories regarding the important events in our country. There is a story there. Tsarnaev was a college kid who, by the “looks” of him seemed quite normal. He wasn’t! We should take notice of that instead of condemning the magazine for bringing that fact to light.
LikeLike
Anonymous
July 19, 2013
I like what you said.and agree, but I can see both sides of this. It is unfortunate that sensitivity is often overlooked in favor of making a point, but I guess, sometimes that’s the more effective way. I can’t help thinking, though, is there a beter way? Do we have to fight fire with fire?
Also, I don’t think it is coincidence that this was put out at the same time as the Trayvon / Zimmerman verdict happened in relation to judging (misjudging)on the basis of how someone appears.
I often ask, where does one draw the line? I dont know the answer, and I don’t think it’s the same answer all the time.
Very thought-provoking, often disturbing – always very real
LikeLike
Justin Caouette
July 19, 2013
Thanks “anonymous”. Is my view really that “disturbing” though. I take it that’s why you posted as “anonymous”?
Regardless, thanks for your comment.
LikeLike
Janis
July 19, 2013
Actually didn’t mean to post anonymously (just didn’t follow the rules) and no, I do not think your view is disturbing, just the whole story and how reactions are often too much to take. It really makes one think and see how crazy and complex the world is…
And, I am actually impressed by your honesty and openness in spite of what seems to be the unpopular opinion- a good quote I heard today, “Maybe questioning the norm should be the norm.”
LikeLike
Adam Benevides
July 19, 2013
I have no problem with the news at all, I don’t even have a problem when rock journalist attempt to write news stories… The issue is with the perception of what RS magazine is and how people view people on the cover of Rolling Stone magazine – not cover photos in general. Just like GQ sets the standards of attractive men, and Maxxim -attractive women, on their covers, Rolling Stone sets the stage for what young people listen to and emulate. I don’t think anyone would be pissed at all on this board if it were people magazine that did this and not Rolling Stone.
To your point about, the image of a normal boy… well, yes, he wasn’t as shady as his brother who came from the same family and then moved to the U.S. to become a criminal and impose sharia law over his American girlfriend/wife while training for a jihad… yeah I guess he wasn’t that weird. However, the more these stories come out the more we hear the warning signs like he used to make comments about how terrorism may be justified or that hurting one muslim hurts all… Yeah I guess if anything, those words ring like church bells these days…. Maybe our heads should be on a swivel.
LikeLike
Justin Caouette
July 20, 2013
I think you’re giving Rolling Stone’s influence wayyyyyy too much credit!
Regarding the boys normalcy I think you’re completely missing the point. He “looked” normal in his picture. That’s all! I haven’t made any claims about his character or how he compares to his sick brother.
He wasn’t always a terrorist either. He was a teen college student who attended the same college I did. He had a facebook, he had friends, etc. It’s easy to forget all that stuff when looking at a bloody photograph of him getting arrested, or by looking at his mugshot. That’s the purpose of humanizing him, and why I take the cover photo to be appropriate (given the context of the article). To open people’s eyes. Not all terrorists have beards to there knees or have a certain look.
LikeLike
Yago (@Yago32)
July 20, 2013
After a week seeing this outrage in regards to the cover of the new R.S. cover, I have heard over and over the same rhetoric that it offends the public, is insensitive, that it glamorize the accuser, etc, etc. I honestly believe that this is an extreme over-reaction from an event, that though tragic, is no comparison to more “professional” terrorist attacks, not just in the US but around the world.
It Looks like like American Society has become too domesticated to avoid confronting the realities of life. And to make it worst, a big percentage of those realities are direct consequences of the barbarities we allow to happen around the world by our Government and Corporations in OUR Name. Are we being too infantile to try to avoid the dark side of life? Are we too naive that we think those things only happen somewhere else and our style of life do not affect others? That our Wars don’t create future Bomber?
We need to grow up, to see the world around us, and understand the real magnitude of the things we allow our Government to do.
LikeLike
Justin Caouette
July 20, 2013
I can’t agree with everything you have said Yago, However, there is a point I think is worth bringing out. You say “our Wars don’t create future Bomber?”. IN response I think you’re on to something. For those who are so concerned with the youth being influenced by a Rolling Stone cover maybe you should redirect that concern to what our country is doing overseas and how that affects our youth. How sending hundreds of thousands of teens overseas to come home with PTSD and commit acts of violence themselves. Surely, that influence is MUCH worse than the influence a Rolling Stone cover will have. Wake up, people!
LikeLike
Anonymous
July 26, 2013
Just wondering if the editor has had enough of the bad press etc when he tweeted that maybe they (RS) should have drawn a dick on his head. He deleted it but not fast enough. Of course he made a retraction and apologized for his comment. Saying that he stands by their cover but not by his tweet that it was “appropriate and disrespectful”
LikeLike