So, WTF Rolling Stone? Dzhokhar Tsarnaev as a cover?

As for the "If you don't pay attention to the words on the cover" argument, is that something to worry about? So no one should have ever used these pictures of the bomber? Because I've seen them in a lot of places. I obviously understand why anyone affected by the bombing is disgusted at news coverage of Jahar.

It's not like this is new. Time did it with Columbine. I think too many people equate RS with fluff and celebrities. I subscribe for news features, especially their foreign coverage.
http://bztv.typepad.com/instanthistory/images/2007/04/22/1101990503_400_2.jpg

 

Well-said...

I know OJ and Manson have been on covers before, but those photos don't look like glamour shots.

 

The "Monsters Next Door" Time cover with the Columbine killers was a bit different, it didn't look like a glamour shot and it ran days after the massacre happened. The difference between Time and RS is notable as well. RS covers are usually reserved for celebrities or Obama.

It does make a difference. If Time runs this photo days after the bombing, the context is considerably different than this is.

 

That's a good point about the context of a RS cover, though I'd argue a lot of people that are "upset" about this issue, don't really know that or understand RS covers these stories so well, like you do. It's just something to get angry about on Twitter for a few hours.

 

I just don't think with have the ethical right to edit with moralistic ideas like "We're not going to give him publicity."

They regularly cover news, and this is one of the biggest stories of the year. It's also a story that I think the reader wants to see. One year, the kid is wrestling in the state tournament, and the next he's a mass murderer. Fascinating stuff.

You report the news, pleasant or not.

The "Don't give them publicity" idea is one I expect from non-journalists.

 

Use a photo that conveys some of the horror of the street scene as the cover art, with The Bomber's facial shot laid on top of it somewhere. "The Bomber" hed and the mug shot will combine to get the point across in a more serious manner.

 

I thought the cover was pretty effective at showing just how easy it is for someone to get off that "normal" path.

Also I think someone pointed it out on the last page, but RS could give a fuck what any of us think. If their market buys it, that's what matters. Kind of reminds me of all the New Yorker covers that get talked about with so much heat by a lot of people who aren't otherwise reading the New Yorker.

 

RS uses portraits on its covers. Always has. That a mass murderer has the soft features teenage girls respond to is genetic happenstance, not evidence of a plot by the RS edit board.

 

Drug store giant CVS (based in Rhode Island) announces it won't sell the magazine:

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2013/07/17/cvs-tedeschis-wont-sell-rolling-stone-with-tsarnaev-on-cover/

 

I don't find a 40-year-old cover to be compelling evidence of a contemporary rebranding push.

 

You can buy it at a CVS, but only if you give them your weight first.