Rolling Stone puts Boston bombing suspect on cover

JonnyPistachio

What do you think? Is this a bad move by RS?

Rolling Stone puts Boston bombing suspect on cover, ignites firestorm

http://us.cnn.com/2013/07/17/studentnew ... ?hpt=hp_c2

New York (CNN) -- Rolling Stone magazine's decision to put Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the accused Boston Marathon bomber, on the cover of its latest issue has ignited a firestorm of outrage online.

The cover picture is one that Tsarnaev himself posted online and has been published widely by other media outlets in the past.

But many took exception to its prominent play in Rolling Stone, where the space is more often than not reserved for rock stars and celebrities.

"Oh look, Rolling Stone magazine is glamourizing terrorism. Awesome," Adrienne Graham commented on the magazine's Facebook page. "I will NOT be buying this issue, or any future issues," Others echoed similar sentiments.

Boston bombing suspect arraigned Inside the Tsarnaev court hearing Tsarnaev's mother: 'My son is not guilty'

Words such as "tasteless," "sickening" and "disgusting" flew around social media.

The photo shows a scraggy-haired, goatee-d Tsarnaev staring straight at the camera.

The text read: "The Bomber. How a popular, promising student was failed by his family, fell into radical Islam and became a monster."

The magazine says the article itself is a deeply-researched account of the suspect.

-- A public plea from his former wrestling coach may have ultimately convinced Tsarnaev to surrender when police surrounded the boat in which he was hiding.

-- He played down the fact that he was a Muslim in high school. But he also took his religion seriously.

-- He once let slip to a friend that the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks could be justified because of U.S. policies toward Muslim countries.

The issue hits newsstands on August 3.

But the magazine's Facebook post of the cover image has received more than 4,700 comments by early Wednesday morning.

"What a slap in the face to the great city of Boston and the Marathon Bombing victims," commented Lindsey Williamson.

The cover also brought out comments from the "Free Jahar" movement. (Dzohkhar is also spelled Jahar.)
"#BoycottRollingStone calling Djahar a monster and stirring the pot even more shame on you! Innocent until PROVEN guilty," tweeted @Jahars_Tsarnaev.

CNN has reached out to Rolling Stone for comment, but has not received a response.

Authorities accuse brothers Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev of setting off a pair of bombs just seconds apart near the finish line of the packed Boston Marathon course on Boylston Street on April 15.

Three people were killed and more than 260 were injured.

Tamerlan Tsarnaev was killed four days later in a shootout with police.

Younger brother Dzhokhar was captured and charged with 30 federal counts stemming from the attack.
Last week, he pleaded not guilty to the charges.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Slow month for music? Seeking controversy? Broadening their range of topics?

In my opinion... the think tank failed on this one. In answer to your question: bad move.

unsung

Rolling Stone hasn't been relevant for a long time. This will possibly sell more magazines for a brief time for the shock value, but over time people will cancel because of this.

PJ Colombian

Rolling Stone magazine is great...to wipe your ass with

hedonist

But...he's so DREAMY!

pjl44

Media outlets continue to ignore forensic psychiatrists who claim that publicity like this leads to future tragedies. They have every right to publish something like this, but need to understand the contribution they're making to the next mass killing.

ajedigecko

pjl44 wrote:

Media outlets continue to ignore forensic psychiatrists who claim that publicity like this leads to future tragedies. They have every right to publish something like this, but need to understand the contribution they're making to the next mass killing.

Well said

cincybearcat

Stupid move. Actually, as someone already said, it's more than stupid, it's dangerous.

gimmesometruth27

how many covers was osama bin laden on? how many was the unibomber on? how many was eric rudolph on?

i don't recall any outrage by putting those guys on the cover of any magazines.

SPEEDY MCCREADY

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

how many covers was osama bin laden on? how many was the unibomber on? how many was eric rudolph on?

i don't recall any outrage by putting those guys on the cover of any magazines.

Check pm's.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

pjl44 wrote:

Media outlets continue to ignore forensic psychiatrists who claim that publicity like this leads to future tragedies. They have every right to publish something like this, but need to understand the contribution they're making to the next mass killing.

I agree.

The media industry likely does understand the effect they have on the perpetuation of violence, but within this industry... this is rationalized with the 'people have a right to know' mantra.

JimmyV

ajedigecko wrote:

pjl44 wrote:

Media outlets continue to ignore forensic psychiatrists who claim that publicity like this leads to future tragedies. They have every right to publish something like this, but need to understand the contribution they're making to the next mass killing.

Well said

Indeed.

SVRDhand13

I think the bigger travesty was putting Bieber on the cover

JimmyV

To me the issue is not that he is on the cover. His image has been shown enough now that it is easily recognizable. It is a fair question whether or not that image belongs on the cover of a magazine like Rolling Stone, so opinions will vary.

The greater issue and the reason why this has sparked such outrage is the image Rolling Stone chose to use. Take away all the text on that cover, forget all that you know about Bomber #2, and that picture looks like any other rock star image you would find on the cover of Rolling Stone. That is glamorizing him and that is out of line. This is not just another picture of bin Laden or the Unibomber. This is a sexed-up picture of a murderer that has no place on the cover a music/pop culture magazine. That they once upon a time featured Charles Manson is no excuse. They were wrong to do that too.

ajedigecko

If they were wise...they could have put the faces of the victims.

Its Evolution Baby

To me...this is no big deal. Didn't Time name Bin Laden Person of the Year or was he just nominated?

Rolling Stone has ALWAYS covered politics and usually cover it from a liberal perspective. Conservatives should be pleased they don't take the side of the Free Jahar wackos.

JimmyV

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

To me...this is no big deal. Didn't Time name Bin Laden Person of the Year or was he just nominated?

Rolling Stone has ALWAYS covered politics and usually cover it from a liberal perspective. Conservatives should be pleased they don't take the side of the Free Jahar wackos.

Have you read the piece? (I have not.) Maybe I am wrong but based on the description can we be really sure this isn't taking his supporters' side or painting him in a sympathetic, victimized light? That seems far from clear.

The text read: "The Bomber. How a popular, promising student was failed by his family, fell into radical Islam and became a monster."

The magazine says the article itself is a deeply-researched account of the suspect.

-- A public plea from his former wrestling coach may have ultimately convinced Tsarnaev to surrender when police surrounded the boat in which he was hiding.

-- He played down the fact that he was a Muslim in high school. But he also took his religion seriously.

-- He once let slip to a friend that the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks could be justified because of U.S. policies toward Muslim countries.

Bronx Bombers

From Dave Draiman of Disturbed

How far the mighty have fallen,

I used to dream of making the cover of Rolling Stone magazine, as it used to be the ultimate statement of legitimacy for an aspiring musician and it meant that you had really made it. Over the past 5 years, Rolling Stone has become less and less about music, and has become more and more about bullshit, pop culture nonsense. Even though many of us may not care for it, we were able to live with it…until this.

You…Dare…To…Put…The…Image…Of…The…Boston…Bomber…On…The…Fucking…Cover…Of…Your…Magazine!!!!????

Are you out of your ultra-liberal, sympathetic to a fault, fucking minds??? You have not only succeeded in blatantly insulting and dishonoring the victims and families whose lives were forever effected by this rabid animal, but you have now glorified his cowardly and unforgivable act. Why? Because it will sell magazines? Because it will create controversy? Because you actually do sympathize with this abhorrent, cowardly, piece of shit? You have made it attractive and validated the act, to a whole new generation of wanna be terrorists seeking martyrdom and infamy. You, and your kind are the reason why people think that they can go out “in a blaze of glory” while murdering innocents. Honestly, and i mean this from the bottom of my heart…Go…Fuck…Yourselves.

The next terrorist/murdering incident, be it another bomber, or a madman with an assault rifle, unleashing fire upon a school full of children, is on you.

May your consciences (if you even have them) weigh immeasurable heavy on you for the rest of your lives. I condemn this act, this notion, and this worthless piece of shit fucking rag of a magazine. May the powers that be have mercy upon your souls, because the next time something like this happens, i assure you, the world wont.

-Go to hell

polaris_x

i will wait to read the article before passing judgement ... i'm not sure if this is a serious journalism piece or simply a shock-approach to try and gain press ... i do feel people really just want him to be this anti-american muslim extremist so we can ignore (yet again) the true causes of these incidents ...

SVRDhand13

Bronx Bombers wrote:

From Dave Draiman of Disturbed

How far the mighty have fallen,

I used to dream of making the cover of Rolling Stone magazine, as it used to be the ultimate statement of legitimacy for an aspiring musician and it meant that you had really made it. Over the past 5 years, Rolling Stone has become less and less about music, and has become more and more about bullshit, pop culture nonsense. Even though many of us may not care for it, we were able to live with it…until this.

You…Dare…To…Put…The…Image…Of…The…Boston…Bomber…On…The…Fucking…Cover…Of…Your…Magazine!!!!????

Are you out of your ultra-liberal, sympathetic to a fault, fucking minds??? You have not only succeeded in blatantly insulting and dishonoring the victims and families whose lives were forever effected by this rabid animal, but you have now glorified his cowardly and unforgivable act. Why? Because it will sell magazines? Because it will create controversy? Because you actually do sympathize with this abhorrent, cowardly, piece of shit? You have made it attractive and validated the act, to a whole new generation of wanna be terrorists seeking martyrdom and infamy. You, and your kind are the reason why people think that they can go out “in a blaze of glory” while murdering innocents. Honestly, and i mean this from the bottom of my heart…Go…Fuck…Yourselves.

The next terrorist/murdering incident, be it another bomber, or a madman with an assault rifle, unleashing fire upon a school full of children, is on you.

May your consciences (if you even have them) weigh immeasurable heavy on you for the rest of your lives. I condemn this act, this notion, and this worthless piece of shit fucking rag of a magazine. May the powers that be have mercy upon your souls, because the next time something like this happens, i assure you, the world wont.

-Go to hell

This is fantastic. And it convinced me to not renew my subscription.

Its Evolution Baby

JimmyV wrote:

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

To me...this is no big deal. Didn't Time name Bin Laden Person of the Year or was he just nominated?

Rolling Stone has ALWAYS covered politics and usually cover it from a liberal perspective. Conservatives should be pleased they don't take the side of the Free Jahar wackos.

Have you read the piece? (I have not.) Maybe I am wrong but based on the description can we be really sure this isn't taking his supporters' side or painting him in a sympathetic, victimized light? That seems far from clear.

The text read: "The Bomber. How a popular, promising student was failed by his family, fell into radical Islam and became a monster."

The magazine says the article itself is a deeply-researched account of the suspect.

-- A public plea from his former wrestling coach may have ultimately convinced Tsarnaev to surrender when police surrounded the boat in which he was hiding.

-- He played down the fact that he was a Muslim in high school. But he also took his religion seriously.

-- He once let slip to a friend that the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks could be justified because of U.S. policies toward Muslim countries.

I think calling him a Monster is pretty accurate and shows what there conclusion will be. I will be reading the article (for free hopefully) and if it's a trash piece I'll change my opinion. I haven't bought a Rolling Stone since Eddie was on the cover, and had I known that pissed him off I wouldn't have bought that one. I subscribed from like 96 to 99 when I was in high school but when music started to suck so did the magazine.