'Rolling Stone' defends Tsarnaev cover

UsedToBeHusky

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/07/17/dzhokhar-tsarnaev-boston-marathon-bombing-rolling-stone/2523891/

Personally, I just think they did it cause he's good-looking.




Thoughts? Not looking to start a debate. Just curious what people thought were the motivations behind this.

SlimJanette

I don't understand why they would glorify him. But they say that PR is PR whether it is good or bad.
People will buy it to see why he is on the cover. Therefore they have done what they set out to do.

UsedToBeHusky

I don't understand why they would glorify him. But they say that PR is PR whether it is good or bad.
People will buy it to see why he is on the cover. Therefore they have done what they set out to do.

I suppose that is true. But they have never needed to pull a stunt like this before to sell magazines.

Krizzle4Rizzle

If I recall, hasn't TIME magazine had controversial covers?

SlimJanette

I personally wouldn't buy it because I don't agree with them doing it.

oregonzoo

I think we need to know more about the brothers. Yes.
But I'm also not comfortable with glorifying them.

Those who kill and pull off terror stunts are getting far far too much press these days.

cruzcrzyMarie

I think whomever decided he would be on the cover should be FIRED!

Alex_is_Hawks

it wouldn't have bothered me if they hadn't tried to use soft lighting and other effects to make him look like a young sexy pop star...

how many teens are gonna fall in love with him based on the cover and never bother to even read what he did?

it's just sad really

SlimJanette

I am Canadian so this did not affect myself personally although I did feel terrible for Boston, but is it not too soon to be even having this on the cover? He hasn't even mad it to court. What happens when the trial starts?

UsedToBeHusky

If I recall, hasn't TIME magazine had controversial covers?

Yeah, but TIME is a news magazine... Rolling Stone is more of a pop culture magazine. Putting him on the cover kind of implies that he should be viewed the same as celebrities.

UsedToBeHusky

it wouldn't have bothered me if they hadn't tried to use soft lighting and other effects to make him look like a young sexy pop star...

how many teens are gonna fall in love with him based on the cover and never bother to even read what he did?

it's just sad really

This... they put him on the cover because he's young and handsome.

Rage_Phish

did people complain when the NY Times did the same?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BPY4qE1CYAAOA3Z.jpg:large


Did people get offended by this one?
http://s2.hubimg.com/u/4561397_f248.jpg


Or this one
http://timelifeblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/12_19_1969.jpg

I think it's a valid cover story. I think that it's purpose was to challenge our ideas about what a terrorist is and how fairly normal kid in America can become radicalized. I don't think it's an attempt to make him into a Rockstar nor make light of what happened.

Or is the issue that he doesnt have a beard/turban or that it's not a stereotypical racist caricature of him?
http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1117985/thumbs/o-THE-WEEK-570.jpg?7

jmc0806

awful...they use a picture that makes him look like a rock star and Jim Morrison lookalike

Rage_Phish

If I recall, hasn't TIME magazine had controversial covers?

Yeah, but TIME is a news magazine... Rolling Stone is more of a pop culture magazine. Putting him on the cover kind of implies that he should be viewed the same as celebrities.

RS have had serious news coverage since the beginning. Hunter S Thompson covering the campaign in 72 for example.

They win awards all of the time. The McChrystal article got a Polk award. The Goldman Sachs story got a Hillman foundation award.

ryry_

Kind of Bad...Didn't even realize it was him the first time I saw it. Thought it was like the next John Mayer type.

Now the next crazy kid who wants to be famous has incentive. Sad.

Espressocycle

If I recall, hasn't TIME magazine had controversial covers?

Yes, and many terrorists have graced the covers of magazines. Hitler was man of the year after all, it's not always a good guy.
They are making a statement - here's this guy who doesn't look like a terrorist. Here's how he became one.

Timshel_

Bad taste and judgement, but who cares if it sells, right/

So_Much_Fab

it wouldn't have bothered me if they hadn't tried to use soft lighting and other effects to make him look like a young sexy pop star...

This is along the lines of my thinking. They could have used an unflattering picture, or Photoshop effects to make him look less sexy and perhaps more sinister. This cover was being compared to them putting Charles Manson on the cover in 1970, but Manson didn't look like a model on that cover.

UsedToBeHusky

I think it's a valid cover story. I think that it's purpose was to challenge our ideas about what a terrorist is and how fairly normal kid in America can become radicalized. I don't think it's an attempt to make him into a Rockstar nor make light of what happened.

Or is the issue that he doesnt have a beard/turban or that it's not a stereotypical racist caricature of him?

That's a good point. But will people really see the article that way?

michellechawner

Do I think it was a good idea? No, too soon in my opinion. But once the trial starts? You bet!

Am I mad at Rolling Stone? Nope. It's their business. All PR is good PR.

Do I agree with what they did? No. But it's life.

Do I think the younger one was brainwashed by his brother? Yes.

Although I do not AGREE with the way both brothers handled things (the bombing), I do SOMEWHAT understand where they are coming from. Go ahead, I'm a white girl, but many people won't be friends with me / give me dirty looks because my boyfriend of nearly 3 years is a Muslim. So while I can understand that yes the killing is uncalled for over where they were from or for their beliefs, and they were mad and wanted revenge, it was also uncalled for to hurt (bomb) Americans as well.

sullus

I think it's a valid cover story. I think that it's purpose was to challenge our ideas about what a terrorist is and how fairly normal kid in America can become radicalized. I don't think it's an attempt to make him into a Rockstar nor make light of what happened.

Or is the issue that he doesnt have a beard/turban or that it's not a stereotypical racist caricature of him?

That's a good point. But will people actually see the article?

Fixed.

Alex_is_Hawks

it wouldn't have bothered me if they hadn't tried to use soft lighting and other effects to make him look like a young sexy pop star...

This is along the lines of my thinking. They could have used an unflattering picture, or Photoshop effects to make him look less sexy and perhaps more sinister. This cover was being compared to them putting Charles Manson on the cover in 1970, but Manson didn't look like a model on that cover.

I don't agree with this either...i don't think we need to demonize him...

that's not fair ...

but make him look normal, don't photoshop him, don't soft light him, don't airbrush out the imperfections and style his hair and make him look like music stars we have seen and idolised...

why put him on the cover at all....why not put another piece as the cover and have the article still in there...

I don't agree with demonizing, but I also don't agree with romanticising...

UsedToBeHusky

I think it's a valid cover story. I think that it's purpose was to challenge our ideas about what a terrorist is and how fairly normal kid in America can become radicalized. I don't think it's an attempt to make him into a Rockstar nor make light of what happened.

Or is the issue that he doesnt have a beard/turban or that it's not a stereotypical racist caricature of him?

That's a good point. But will people actually see the article?

Fixed.

So you think the public won't get past the cover?

bcf7683

I'm sure they knew the sh!tstorm that they were going to create by doing this...

That said, I disagree with the type of image they used. They shouldn't beautify someone of his character. They should have used a less "rockstar"-ish image....like maybe the pathetic mug shot?

Rage_Phish

I think it's a valid cover story. I think that it's purpose was to challenge our ideas about what a terrorist is and how fairly normal kid in America can become radicalized. I don't think it's an attempt to make him into a Rockstar nor make light of what happened.

Or is the issue that he doesnt have a beard/turban or that it's not a stereotypical racist caricature of him?

That's a good point. But will people actually see the article?

Fixed.

So you think the public won't get past the cover?

Many people wont. They are the people that live in the world of sound-clips and talking points & blowhard "news" commentators. They will be outraged at the cover (likely cause they heard they should be), but wont actually read it to get context

I think many people will read it (some simply because of this controversy) and hopefully it will help continue a dialogue as to how a person does such a terrible thing and how we can spot warning signs to prevent it.

sullus

I think it's a valid cover story. I think that it's purpose was to challenge our ideas about what a terrorist is and how fairly normal kid in America can become radicalized. I don't think it's an attempt to make him into a Rockstar nor make light of what happened.

Or is the issue that he doesnt have a beard/turban or that it's not a stereotypical racist caricature of him?

That's a good point. But will people actually see the article?

Fixed.

So you think the public won't get past the cover?

Most of what I'm hearing is that people wont even buy it .. so yeah, I dont think most people will get past the cover.

Laces_0ut

whats the big deal? Time had Bin Laden on the cover. Rolling Stone does lots of serious articles.


im sure they picked a picture they knew would draw attention but so what?

sabified

Didn't check the article, or read and responses... but it's a magazine which likes to push the envelope... and they did just that. The only reason it was stupid was because it's still too soon... but really, if they had done it next month, it would have been "last months' news".

I don't hate. They're just doing their job.

akaMrsmojo

I think it is insensitive. While they have a right to do it, it is symptom of society's major issues. I would never buy it.

JUDDDing

it wouldn't have bothered me if they hadn't tried to use soft lighting and other effects to make him look like a young sexy pop star...

how many teens are gonna fall in love with him based on the cover and never bother to even read what he did?

it's just sad really

lol, Rolling Stone did not shoot the picture. It was a "selfie" that has been used by other media outlets.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Dzhokhar+Tsarnaev&source=lnms&tbm=isch

There aren't really a ton of choices to pick from.

sullus

I think it is insensitive. While they have a right to do it, it is symptom of society's major issues. I would never buy it.

I'm buying several, then hoping to hell RS caves to pressure and pulls it. In New England CVS and Tedeschi's have already announced they wont carry that issue.