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

That's a pretty good question: What is Rolling Stone's target audience these days? I'm guessing the 35-50ish readers, and a few who've been reading from the beginning. It's not today's college students anymore ... it's the college students who read it in the 1980s and 1990s.

I do give RS credit for some good in-depth news stories in recent years. When I have time, I'll see if this cover story is one of them.

 

(Sorry. Just do not get how this is reprehensible, for the reasons beaten into the ground already. And like others have said, nobody under 35 is even going to see it, or care.)

 

It's easier to mock the excesses of some who go overboard in their criticism than it is to self-examine and wonder if maybe, just maybe, your gut instincts are on the wrong side of the deeper issue and that the criticisms have real points behind them.

 

I don't care either way. I'm not one of those people who think putting someone's face on a cover is a "prize."

 

I think that the criticisms, that Rolling Stone is "glamourizing" Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, are wrong. Completely wrong.

Simultaneously, I think that:

1) Coverage of mass murderers and terrorists can certainly spur copycats. Don't know if it will here. But it could. And, I'm sure, in other cases, from Columbine to Aurora, has. Free press advocates seem to vigorously push back against this notion, as if they are fearful that its validity alone would de-legitimize the mission. It doesn't, because ...

2) Coverage is also necessary and important beyond just feeding base public voyeurism. Terrorism is one of the defining topics of our time. And to understand terrorism, citizens must understand terrorists, as far as that is possible. From a sheer storytelling standpoint, there is a reason that terrorists and mass murderers garner more coverage than their victims. And that is because, in the narrative, the victims are passive actors, while the terrorists and mass murderers are active ones who drive the events. Active characters, wheter in fiction or non-fiction, are always more interesting.

3) And, thus, coverage, which necessarily must juggle these competing public interests, should be handled on a case-by-case basis, with some guiding principles underlying the balancing of interests that should be done.

In this case, I run the cover. It's brilliant. It's powerful. Assuming the story lives up to the hype, it matters, which is as high of an honor as one can grant journalism. I hope that Rolling Stone moves in this direction in the future with its covers, with some more frequency.

 

Well-written analysis, fine.
Inside story, fine.
But a hot-looking cover on a rock magazine = glamor.

 

Just curious, what photo do you think they should have used? This photo has already been used by NYT on its A1, so clearly they didn't see anything wrong with it.

I am trying hard to understand the outrage here, but I am failing. Should they have darkened him up, a la "Time" and O.J.? Should they have used another shot of blood on the scene or an artsy shot of empty running shoes?

Would the reaction be any different if he wasn't so "hot"? If he was unattractive, I mean?

 

RS will have Selena Gomez on the cover or Rihanna or Kid Cuddi. This doesn't represent a change at all. This is a one-off pic of the handsome terrorist. Is Tsarnev looked like a warty troll, they'd have never, ever put him on the cover. Ever. So it's absolutely a souless attention grab.

 

I just want to know, is he going to buy five copies for his mother?

 

The cover works precisely because it is Rolling Stone. The terrorist who doesn't look out of place on our magazine. The terrorist who doesn't look like the bearded stereotype. The terrorist who looks just like your token Muslim buddy.

The calls here for more maudlin sentimentality surprise me. We've gotten plenty of syrupy Portraits of Grief since 9/11. Damned time someone shook things up.

 

Good thing someone caught the Bang Ding Ow typo this time.

 

Josef Stalin and Adolf Hitler, both of whom murdered multiple millions more of human beings than this loser, were on the cover of innumerable magazines including both being named Man of the Year by "Time" back when "Time" was important.