'Rolling Stone' defends Tsarnaev cover

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...

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

thank you...i just googled him...and i found a lot of different normal images of his that they could have used....

so it validates my point....selfie or not...they picked the most handsome picture with the best lighting effects

[thank you...i just googled him...and i found a lot of different normal images of his that they could have used....

so it validates my point....selfie or not...they picked the most handsome picture with the best lighting effects

Which one would you have chosen?

I only looked at the first full page, but the rest are all pretty much too light, too dark, composed oddly or out of focus.

Is this the best available picture to be used for a cover image? IMO, probably.

In my opinion if journalistic integrity was at all a concern they would have avoided the glamorous pretty boy photo on the cover.



http://thatswhatshesaidboston.com/2013/07/dear-rolling-stone/

This person says it better than me to be honest.

Mayor Menino's reply to the publisher http://bostonherald.com/sites/default/files/media/2013/07/17/Menino_RollingStone.pdf

Meh. Using it to gain political capital is as bad as putting him on the cover to start with.

If they really wanted him to look sexy they woulda had him do the janet jackson pose. in all seriousness though, the editors and publishers of Rolling Stone magazine should be forced to walk down the streets of Boston holding up the issue.