Rolling Stone magazine is receiving a sizable amount of backlash over their decision to use a "selfie" of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the accused Boston Marathon bomber, on the cover. One of the more shared opinions is that this is glamorizing and creating a celebrity out of an [allegedly] horrible individual; Rolling Stone is typically fond of using musicians and actors on their covers. Perhaps, though, the more troubling complaint is that the cover was "uninspired."
The magazine is no stranger to a controversial cover. They've published Britney Spears (at 17) in a bra, in bed...
They've dressed Kanye West up as Jesus....
But probably the closest comparison of the Tsarnaev cover would be this one of Charles Manson...
...in which it wasn't so much the content of the article, but the presentation - it came off with the same visual impact as a poster for a rock concert.
It could probably be argued that many people who are quick to call for a boycot of the magazine aren't fully aware of the serious journalism that Rolling Stone is actually known for. Their presentation may have a lot of flash, but their content is equally as hard-hitting - going back decades with the likes of legedary writers like Hunter S. Thompson.
As far as the argument about glamorizing Tsarnaev, the article reads, "The Bomber. How a popular, promising student was failed by his family, fell into radical Islam and became a monster." Calling someone a "monster" is hardly positive. The article itself seeks to try to understand how a horror like this could happen.
Let's also not forget that this image has been published before on the cover of the New York Times.
What do you think?
Via CNN, USA Today, and The Washington Post
And this just inspired 1000's of depressed kids to get onto the cover of Rolling Stones without taking piano or guitar lessons. Nice job Rolling Stones, idiots.
completely agree, they're profiting off of it too. scum move rolling stones...
have anyone of you actually read the article?
Tim. We are not talking about reading it. Even if its a great article. The point is simple. How could you do this! Think about the message this shows. We should NOT reward criminals/terrorists on front cover of mags.
You're right. We should sweep it under the rug, not talk about it, not learn about these people, and just assume the image of them in our heads is correct!
Regarding the photo. Shouldn't the photo complement the article with some journalistic integrity? Because, as far as I can tell, that's what it's doing. It's showing a self photo of a 19yr old kid who turned into a monster.
Stop.... Your being a baby just talking not making any sense. We should NOT reward a terrorist who killed innocent people on the front cover of RollingStone. People are not buying RollingStone to learn about terrorists. They are buying to learn about the music industry..etc. Let time magazine do the article and this would be much more appropriate. This is simple stuff to understand OhBoy.. btw he is NOT a victim...
No one is saying he's a victim. This is not rewarding a terrorist it's journalism. THAT is pretty simple. Again, who are you to tell a publication what they should be writing about? So, let me get this straight, given the same article and photo...it would be OK if it were Time? that....is just incomprehensible to me. It's the same story! If you don't like it, don't buy it!
You truly are lost....sad
that is not true. rolling stone was always more than music magazine... sometimes it gave a lot of messages through culture. lets learn more about rolling stone :)
how many "we" are you talking about? why don`t you say "in my opinion!?
you already killed a terrorist on tv, why do you complaint?
think about a message. that is the thing, you don`t think about it properly, you think about it one sided way... and than you saying "we". there is no me in your we. :)
since its a photo related site, let me talk about photo. i think this photo is a great example how photography is more about just an image. sometimes its more about concept, the story, the feeling it evokes.
let me ask you one thing. i don`t know when this picture were taken, but let me ask you this - if it was taken before the boy "changed", when he was just a lonely and lost boy... does it make him killer on a picture? or its just picture of a kid?
does not the article title said, how the "popular" boy was "failed by the family". is it not the message? its a an american, common boy. its whom you raised, its your society, take responsibility for it. that is the message and i love rolling stone for it.
and stop crying about "depressed" kids. you show them kitchen knife - they will kill each other, wait, they are already killing themselves on computer games. so lets not talk about "depressed" kids. :)
with all do respect i disagree with you.
these kind of comments really makes me sad.
those 1000 depressed kids probably would think about killing themselves if they see kitchen knife, wait, they already playing games on their xbox`s virtually killing each other. why don`t you take responsibility for the society you raised those kids? oooh, i am afraid to give them the "idiot" Dante Alighieri`s book, they`ll all go to hell now.
for every 1000 people that see this cover there will probably be one person to actually read the article.. that being said, it only takes one sicko who's on the edge of doing something like this to follow through because of media status .. don't you people realize how badass it makes this kid feel to be on the cover of rolling stones mag, regardless of the article's content?
Does putting John Lennon on the cover make people go out and beat their wives? Does putting a hip hop star who talks about shooting cops go out and make people want to shoot cops? How about Amy Winehouse...are people getting off the toilet after reading Rolling Stone and booting up some heroin?
Love your thinking. Let's put terrorists who DID kill people not just sang about it. This generation is Fu*ked!
Who has more influence over people? I don't think you're thinking.
Yes
Yeah, they should go back to putting people on the cover with FAR MORE influence over people....who promote violence, domestic abuse, misogyny, and drug use!
Yeah, now all the kids are going to go blow up races! Because that's how the world works! O NOES!
People already know that if they do something terrible they'll end up in a lot of magazines and news around the world. I don't think Rolling Stone has really changed anything here. It does seem a little unrelated to music though.
Wait wait wait......... Rolling Stone still exists?
That's FUNNY!! Yes. with a print circulation of 1.5mil, I'd say it exists..
Well... Baby Boomers ain't gonna live forever, love.
Well, neither is print publication, but, that doesn't mean that Rolling Stone is going to die and not grow...
how'd his trial go?
The print version of clickbait. Bad case of it too.
I wish they would have put Willie Nelson on the cover... they did write an article about him in this edition... apparently he is on the road again.
That would have been very dangerous: young people could think that is the way to go...
No doubt Rolling Stone is one of the best journalistic outlets on the planet, and it's a story worth telling, but they might not have generated so much resentment if they ran a less heroic image of this "Monster" (...coward, if you ask me).
Less heroic? The image is depicting exactly what the article says. He was a typical 19yr old kid who liked Walking Dead, Smoking pot, taking instagram selfies.... who turned himself into a monster. That is a picture of him! It's not like Terry Richardson was hired to do a photoshoot with him. I think the picture is perfect. We already know he's a monster/coward...we don't need that image. It's powerful because it could be anyone. If it were a picture of him with an AK47 and a turban, no one would bat an eye because that's the image everyone has in their heads. Unfortunately, that's not a true image. This one is.
I'm not suggesting an AK47 or turban - how about one where he's bloody and battered on the street getting arrested instead?
We've seen that on the news and in the papers though, this is the other side of the story. The backstory.
He would still be on the cover of Rolling Stone. There would still be prestige in that, crazy though that might seem.
...or lying in his hospital bed?
Again, we've seen that depiction. The article isn't about what happened after he was arrested. It's about his life before everything.
"Rolling Stone Publishes Yet Another Controversial Cover" And so does Fstoppers, for even publishing the cover and article. Don't give him the fame.
I admit, I am a little puzzled by why Fstoppers chose this as an article at all.
Steve, you know exactly why, right? Was that a rhetorical statement? click, click, click. They might as well swell off the traffic as well.
Who took this photo?
And did they properly attain it without violating copyright?
Anyways,
Lets not forget that the most evil people of our time have made covers of prestigious magazines over the decades: Hitler, Osama, Saddam, and even Darth Vader. All those guys grace 'Time' magazine. Manson was also on 'Life' ... So, this stuff is nothing new and nearly as old as the magazines themselves.
The problem is...those guys LOOKED like terrorists. This guy...looks normal. People are bummed that he looks normal. "Can you get me a picture of this guy in a turban or something? or with an AK in his hand going through some terrorist camp?" Then, it would have been OK to put him on the cover....but, screw journalistic integrity. People are upset that the image of this guy in their heads is different than real life.
The Oklahoma City bomber looked like a normal guy and he's got a 'Time' cover as well.
And what makes someone "look" like a terrorist? All these guys were wearing the clothing of their local culture and time. Beards? Mustaches?
Our very own US Presidents had facial hair.
But, you're right: people are upset that this guy isn't the poster boy of what we label as a terrorist. But the reality is: he is.
Well, like it or not, this has gotten everyone to talk about Rolling Stone again, which was all but forgotten in the past few years.
Hello guys!! Remember RollingStone is NOT the same as TIMES Magazine.
Today I learned that certain magazines only have the right to write about certain things. Huh. Who knew! It's a good thing TIME doesn't put musicians on the cover ever!!
Wrong:
Jay-Z, Michael Jackson, Kanye West, Duke Ellington, etc.
I was being facetious and sarcastic. Springsteen was on the cover of both Rolling Stone AND Time at the same time actually.
It's hard to tell nowadays without facial expressions or intonations to take cues from. And there are just some people on the Net that are *that* dumb.
The ambiguity of text-based communications ... -_-
I think OhBoy was being sarcastic, Daniel .. jus sayin
Actually, dumbass, Rolling Stone has had some of the hands down, best, non-music, thought provoking journalistic articles to ever be published ANYWHERE. But, since you are obviously just another me-me-me millennial, you would never be able to grasp the concept.
Paul. No need to disrespect me. This is why people don't hear you when you talk to them like that.