Rolling Stone labeled a 'total disgrace' for decision to make the Boston bombing suspect its cover

[F430murci]

I get that, but one also has to realize that dipshit bomber probably is pretty proud to be on the cover of Rolling Stone magazine. This glorifies him and Rolling Stone could have done same article without glorifying him with a cover photo glamour shot.

I totally fail to understand how this glorifies him. Who exactly are you concerned about that will view this as glorification? I certainly don't.

Obviously, it's subjective and some may not feel that way, especially those that somewhat support what he did.

How many kinds dream about being on the cover of Rolling Stone magazine? You either get it or you don't. Most here in US including musicians with ties to Rolling Stone are getting it.

[orosee]

Pretty much every rock star in the 60's to 80's was a drug user. Nowadays, I guess mostly sexists, pimps and ex cons. A terrorist is not such a big leap. Perhaps the next cover could be a UAV, or a handsome guy in Guantanamo?

This is like people eating meat and complaining about the bloody mess of slaughterhouses. I congratulate RSM for this cover.

[orosee]

Sorry, I forgot to write "picture on RSM covers" in the first paragraph above.

[JetsetBkk]

OK, maybe I don't understand as I am not American .

The bombing was terrible (I run plenty of half and full marathons) but end of the day, three people died. There was total news coverage for 2 weeks whilst the more than thousand people that died in the building collapse (producing cheap garments for the West, may I add) were forgotten pretty quickly.

And no, I am not trying to incite a riot here, just my point of view from distant Cambodia.

Just to clarify, I pressed Like by mistake.

<snip>

That's a relief! You can now click on the same button - it should now be labelled "Unlike".

[kurnell]

I've seen Rolling Stone's 100 greatest songs of all time. As far as I am concerned they already have zero credibility.

[bangkokstick]

I hate any censors whatever is the reason, I would put Bin Laden on first page also.just to shut their mouth.

[Publicus]

OK, maybe I don't understand as I am not American .

The bombing was terrible (I run plenty of half and full marathons) but end of the day, three people died. There was total news coverage for 2 weeks whilst the more than thousand people that died in the building collapse (producing cheap garments for the West, may I add) were forgotten pretty quickly.

And no, I am not trying to incite a riot here, just my point of view from distant Cambodia.

The sick kid local boy set off bombs in a crowd at a world class annual event in a world class city in the United States, an act of terrorism.

The tragedy in Bangladesh was an ordinary building collapse in a country where a building collapse, however gut wrenching and criminal, is a shoulder shrugging event.

Also, the presence (and freedoms) of mass media in each country was a major contributing factor to the extensive attention given to the U.S. bombing and the brief and paltry reporting of the Bangladesh disaster.

There are subjective factors involved, but the objective factors made the U.S. bombings the greater event locally, nationally, globally.

[ronrat]

I would rather they put a photo Snowden or Assange on the cover,

[Publicus]

I would rather they put a photo Snowden or Assange on the cover,

I think they already have their mugs on a certain organization's 10 most wanted list.

Well, maybe not yet.

Yet.

[cocopops]

This is a most vacuous manifestation of the progressives tendency to search for moral relativism under any stone, rolling or not. The murderer represents a totalitarian ideology that seeks to usurp western democracy, which would presumably curtail music and youth culture in general, which gives Rolling stone it's raison d'etre. Saddest of all is the fact that had Dzorkhar Tsarnaev not been photogenic then his photo would have never made the front cover.

It's none of those things. If anything the opposite. There exists in the world a stone-age ideology that would be ridiculous if, in this era of increasing destructive power, it weren't so dangerous. From time to time it infects individuals more virulently than usual, with (literally) explosive results. Liberal thinkers, aghast at prospect of acknowledging the role religious beliefs play in this, search for explanations everywhere. Perhaps the true cause is poverty. Or some political grievance. Or anything that allows them to avoid any implicit criticism of religion - no matter how slight. Because if they do criticise religion - any religion - then they're stuck. They either admit that their conservative enemies are correct and Christianity is superior to at least some other religions in some ways, or that the whole thing is bullshit and we should stop dogmatically swallowing the "wisdom" of books written by people who literally knew too little about the world to keep faeces out of their food.

But this story knocks another chink in that world view. This good-looking young man had an American upbringing no different from thousands of others. No indication of mental illness (except in the broadest sense: to do what he did some part of his brain must be malfunctioning). And he ended up destroying his own and several other lives for no rational reason. A terrorist.

This is something worth investigating. A phenoma worth trying to explain. And honestly, I'd expect the folks at Rolling Stone to do a better job of it than most.

[Steely Dan]

Okay, those who see nothing wrong with the cover, lets pursue this to it's next logical conclusion. How is this mock up cover different to the actual one?

[SteeleJoe]

Okay, those who see nothing wrong with the cover, lets pursue this to it's next logical conclusion. How is this mock up cover different to the actual one?

How is it different?

1). He doesn't look glamorous.

2) The photo is stark reminder of the brutality of his crime.

3) The real cover didn't have that stupid blurb on the cover which trivializes the event and negates any attempt at journalism.

[SteeleJoe]

This is a most vacuous manifestation of the progressives tendency to search for moral relativism under any stone, rolling or not. The murderer represents a totalitarian ideology that seeks to usurp western democracy, which would presumably curtail music and youth culture in general, which gives Rolling stone it's raison d'etre. Saddest of all is the fact that had Dzorkhar Tsarnaev not been photogenic then his photo would have never made the front cover.

It's none of those things. If anything the opposite. There exists in the world a stone-age ideology that would be ridiculous if, in this era of increasing destructive power, it weren't so dangerous. From time to time it infects individuals more virulently than usual, with (literally) explosive results. Liberal thinkers, aghast at prospect of acknowledging the role religious beliefs play in this, search for explanations everywhere. Perhaps the true cause is poverty. Or some political grievance. Or anything that allows them to avoid any implicit criticism of religion - no matter how slight. Because if they do criticise religion - any religion - then they're stuck. They either admit that their conservative enemies are correct and Christianity is superior to at least some other religions in some ways, or that the whole thing is bullshit and we should stop dogmatically swallowing the "wisdom" of books written by people who literally knew too little about the world to keep faeces out of their food.

But this story knocks another chink in that world view. This good-looking young man had an American upbringing no different from thousands of others. No indication of mental illness (except in the broadest sense: to do what he did some part of his brain must be malfunctioning). And he ended up destroying his own and several other lives for no rational reason. A terrorist.

This is something worth investigating. A phenoma worth trying to explain. And honestly, I'd expect the folks at Rolling Stone to do a better job of it than most.

It's a very good post even I'm less sure I'd agree with all of it.

I'm almost asleep so for the moment I'll just say this:

"This good-looking young man had an American upbringing no different from thousands of others."

Not at all sure this is true.

[F430murci]

Pretty much every rock star in the 60's to 80's was a drug user. Nowadays, I guess mostly sexists, pimps and ex cons. A terrorist is not such a big leap. Perhaps the next cover could be a UAV, or a handsome guy in Guantanamo?

This is like people eating meat and complaining about the bloody mess of slaughterhouses. I congratulate RSM for this cover.

Comparing a Rock Star to a terrorist. Now I have heard everything.

[Jingthing]

I think it's OK.

He's a terrorist.

He also looks hot.

The cover makes sense for the Rolling Stone.

Fox News is trying to make this a big thing.

It's just a cover.

They're not saying they approve of his crimes.

[Scott]

Off-topic posts deleted.

[jackr]

I am pretty sure Hitler was on the covers of Time and Newsweek during WWII. Or Pol Pot. Or Saddam Hussein. Or Gadaffi.

Can't quite understand what the fuss is about.

Nor me...

I bet you would if it'd been your kid blown to bits.

It is nothing to do with evil not always looking ugly but everything to do with revenue

[belg]

bad publicity = also publicity

seems they have copied that in thailand a lot

[Credo]

It's probably best to follow the old motto: Don't judge a book by it's cover.

I very, very rarely read RS magazine, but it does occasionally come up with some very good stuff and does have a history of doing some worthwhile investigating.

My visceral reaction was to condemn their choice for a cover, but perhaps it will be good for young people to be made aware of this subject.

It all depends on how the article is researched and written.

[Chicog]

AS I said about Snowden, Tsarnaev needs to shoot a black kid then all these indignant curtain twitchers will all be on his side.

[geriatrickid]

How many people have actually read the article? Anyone?

Apparently it is unflattering and does not paint him as a hero. The article examines the circumstances of how he became involved in the act of violence. The picture has been circulating for quite some time. There are dozens of websites set up proclaiming his "innocence". How better to respond to such hero worship than to target those who would portray him as a sensitive lad and reveal his actual background and behaviour?

Kids his age post hundreds of pictures and the use of the photo is a reflection of the Rolling Stone readership. The people who say they will boycott the magazine would not read it anyway, even if the Osmonds were on the cover.

By all accounts he was a rather nice guy and was popular. How does a sensitive looking kid like that become a mass murderer? The background information in the story is going to shock some people, most likely because they won't want to read about a nasty family that encouraged violence, or the community that facilitated a brutal act of cruelty. Sometimes, to better understand a killer we must be able to see the killer and learn that the outward appearance is not reflective of the inside.

I suggest that the critics read the article and then comment.

[F430murci]

How many people have actually read the article? Anyone?

Apparently it is unflattering and does not paint him as a hero. The article examines the circumstances of how he became involved in the act of violence. The picture has been circulating for quite some time. There are dozens of websites set up proclaiming his "innocence". How better to respond to such hero worship than to target those who would portray him as a sensitive lad and reveal his actual background and behaviour?

Kids his age post hundreds of pictures and the use of the photo is a reflection of the Rolling Stone readership. The people who say they will boycott the magazine would not read it anyway, even if the Osmonds were on the cover.

By all accounts he was a rather nice guy and was popular. How does a sensitive looking kid like that become a mass murderer? The background information in the story is going to shock some people, most likely because they won't want to read about a nasty family that encouraged violence, or the community that facilitated a brutal act of cruelty. Sometimes, to better understand a killer we must be able to see the killer and learn that the outward appearance is not reflective of the inside.

I suggest that the critics read the article and then comment.

It's not about the content if the article. It's about having a glamour shot on the front cover. This is probably one of the highlights of this insignificant soul's existence. He does not deserve any highlights.

Why not use a picture of him with blood all over himself after he was extracted from the boat and arrested.

In the grand scheme of things it is not important to me, you or anyone on here. But it ain't always about you.

This is about grieving families and a slew of people that are now disabled and have had their lives completely altered being deeply offended and sending the wrong message to other insignificant souls looking for a way to gain significance.

[SteeleJoe]

How many people have actually read the article? Anyone?

Apparently it is unflattering and does not paint him as a hero. The article examines the circumstances of how he became involved in the act of violence. The picture has been circulating for quite some time. There are dozens of websites set up proclaiming his "innocence". How better to respond to such hero worship than to target those who would portray him as a sensitive lad and reveal his actual background and behaviour?

Kids his age post hundreds of pictures and the use of the photo is a reflection of the Rolling Stone readership. The people who say they will boycott the magazine would not read it anyway, even if the Osmonds were on the cover.

By all accounts he was a rather nice guy and was popular. How does a sensitive looking kid like that become a mass murderer? The background information in the story is going to shock some people, most likely because they won't want to read about a nasty family that encouraged violence, or the community that facilitated a brutal act of cruelty. Sometimes, to better understand a killer we must be able to see the killer and learn that the outward appearance is not reflective of the inside.

I suggest that the critics read the article and then comment.

It's not about the content if the article. It's about having a glamour shot on the front cover. This is probably one of the highlights of this insignificant soul's existence. He does not deserve any highlights.

Why not use a picture of him with blood all over himself after he was extracted from the boat and arrested.

In the grand scheme of things it is not important to me, you or anyone on here. But it ain't always about you.

This is about grieving families and a slew of people that are now disabled and have had their lives completely altered being deeply offended and sending the wrong message to other insignificant souls looking for a way to gain significance.

A lot of the criticism, I understand, IS about the (imagined) content of the article or even it's very existence. Some - perhaps rightly, in my view - complain about the type of photo used but many object to him being on the cover at all.

Even on this thread, a minority of the objections were about the aesthetics of the cover and amongst other complaints about the article we even had a poster say:

"If RS had any brains they'd straight out apologize instead of standing by this horrendous decision that they themselves initiated. So now I have learned that Rolling Stone zine hasn't any brains, sensibilities, sensitivities. All they see is the guy as a sexpot with no named girlfriends and a sweet guy by the accounts of the buddies they chose to interview.

Nothing about the horrors he committed and his self-satisfaction at what he did."

Which of course, said poster stated without ever reading the article or even about its content.

*And anyone who is worried about giving this guy attention he doesn't deserve, encouraging other miscreants, or hurting victims and their families...well, we'll have to completely rethink journalism in a massive way if we want make those worthy concerns of paramount importance.

[uptheos]

Interesting pictures of glamour boy

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2369810/Dzohokhar-Tsarnaev-pictures-Dramatic-new-pictures-moment-Boston-Bomber-Dzohokhar-Tsarnaev-emerged-boat.html

[mopar71]

Apparently the article inside the magazine was worth reading and not glorifying at all. A shame that political correctness and fear of stimulating controversy are dumbing down the general public.

There is an important message overlooked right there on the cover: Evil does not always come with an ugly face. A stark contrast of appearance and actions. No silly mustache, no fancy uniform, no crazy hair.

Appearance may be different but the religion is still the same and that's a bad message to send out. If you have a Muslim neighbor/coworker who "looks all right" maybe you should look more closely. That's not the message that I personally took from it, but I can see it as an extension of the appearance message.

[granuaile]

I agree, it's an event in the news... As far as i am concerned I don't care... Haven't read the article, haven't read Rolling Stone in years, this won't influence me to read or not read in the future.

I am pretty sure Hitler was on the covers of Time and Newsweek during WWII. Or Pol Pot. Or Saddam Hussein. Or Gadaffi.

Can't quite understand what the fuss is about.

[mopar71]

I think it's OK.

He's a terrorist.

He also looks hot.

Yes, he'll be real popular in prison if they ever let him mingle with the other prisoners.

[Jingthing]

Colbert show comment:

Time to start a BOYCOTT of Rolling Stone.

First step: find someone who was already buying Rolling Stone.

[Credo]

Boycotting a magazine is a little like boycotting the wind. It will be gone in a flash and then what do you do?

[canman]

They should have used this pic on the cover:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2369810/Dzohokhar-Tsarnaev-pictures-Dramatic-new-pictures-moment-Boston-Bomber-Dzohokhar-Tsarnaev-emerged-boat.html