Rolling Stone Cover...wtf?

[hellfreezesovertour]

Rolling Stone decided to dedicate its cover to a profile portrait of the surviving Boston Marathon Bomber.

I don't get it.   I really don't.  People around here are FIRED up.   I'm truly surprised by the choice, and all I can think of is that they WANTED this controversy.

thoughts?  (and hell no, I'm not posting a link)

[AJL]

*shrugs* It doesn't bother me.

People get fired up over a lot of things. This is actually something to get fired up about, but I think more than that, it's something to read and to understand. I want to know why this guy did what he did. The Boston bombings were heinous and terrifying, but NOT talking about the crime and not talking about the man responsible isn't going to make the events less terrifying. We talked about 9/11 and the men behind it ad nauseum. This isn't any different.

Why does it bother you so much?

ETA: I think a lot of times stories like this tend to humanize subjects we, the general public, have come to regard as inhuman. When we see that person as not human then it's easier to separate ourselves from that kind of horrible violence. When we are shown a person's humanity and begin to see that person as not unlike ourselves it can really hit too close to home. That is too scary for many people.

[Deleted]

I received mine in the mail yesterday, looked at the cover and didn't think much of it. Its RS, they sometimes profile people and topics that are not popular. I have not had a chance to read it yet.

[Deleted]

I don't get why that's such a big deal, particularly because they call him a "monster" on the cover, which leads me to believe it isn't a positive profile of him.

[hellfreezesovertour]

I see humanity in victims and responders. I think they would have been a better choice. I feel this is giving him the attention he wants. I 100% agree we should figure out what makes someone like this tick, but that's for psychologists and deep thinkers, not rolling stone.

Putting him on the cover is like porn for terrorists. Rolling Stone is playing a game of "how riled up can we get people" to try and sell their magazine. Let's not pretend RS is the one to figure out what radicalizes a terrorist. Esquire did a similar feature and used other photos.

RS is turning into the NY Post.

[AJL]

Yeah...I guess. But I think the outrage is misplaced.

[ringstrue]

It's provocative. It's RS. Seems pretty standard to me.

FWIW, they didn't do anything to his picture to actually make him look a certain way. They took an existing, widely publicized photo of him and made it huge. It's not like they did a photo shoot with him.

[eddy]

Honestly it seems pretty brilliant on RS part.

They are provacative to begin with and everyone is talking about it.

[ringstrue]

Don't get me wrong I don't want to defend RS. I agree that I'd rather see the first responders or the survivors or something but it's hard to critique that w/o having read the cover story.

[pixy0stix]

This doesn't bother me one whit. Especially since it dispels the image of a "muslin towel head". This kid was a normal American boy up to a certain point. People are trying really really hard to forget that fact.

[josieposy]

That's the same photo that was on the front page of the NYT right?

[LoveTrains]

Jul 17, 2013 8:46:06 GMT -5 hellfreezesovertour said:

I see humanity in victims and responders. I think they would have been a better choice. I feel this is giving him the attention he wants. I 100% agree we should figure out what makes someone like this tick, but that's for psychologists and deep thinkers, not rolling stone.

Putting him on the cover is like porn for terrorists. Rolling Stone is playing a game of "how riled up can we get people" to try and sell their magazine. Let's not pretend RS is the one to figure out what radicalizes a terrorist. Esquire did a similar feature and used other photos.

RS is turning into the NY Post.

I agree with this. 

Putting him on the cover is like letting him win, IMO. I don't know why, its just a gut feeling of disgust I get when I see his photo. I am still having a hard time coming to terms with the whole thing, as are lots of folks in greater Boston. I actually find their choice of cover photo pretty horrifying.

But at the end of the day, I just won't buy rolling stone magazines (not that I did before) and carry on with my life. 

[laurenpetro]

i'm not a fan. ordinary people don't end up on the cover of RS. to me it just seems to elevate him to a sort of sick celebrity status.

they can do much better than this. this is lazy.

[Deleted]

Do you feel this way about any magazine that has or had bin Laden on the cover?

I get why this would bother and upset people who are closer to the bombing, but I don't think in itself this is some sign of the decline of RS or that its SO outrageous and inappropriate in itself.

[laurenpetro]

Jul 17, 2013 9:27:05 GMT -5 @mrsbecky07 said:

Do you feel this way about any magazine that has or had bin Laden on the cover?

I get why this would bother and upset people who are closer to the bombing, but I don't think in itself this is some sign of the decline of RS or that its SO outrageous and inappropriate in itself.

i don't.  he wasn't american and wasn't part of the culture.

i'm not going to boycott them or anything but i'm not sad that i haven't renewed recently.  not to say i never will.  this isn't target, FFS     

[taratru]

I'm not upset about it. I think it's important to remind people that this kid's actions were horrific, but he started as a kid just like every other kid in America. For all intents and purposes, he is an average American kid. He IS one of us, whether we like it or not.

I'm sure the article is awesome, like almost all RS articles of this type. I can't wait to read it.

[cattledogkisses]

From what I've heard, the profile is really well-written, but I'm not sure I agree with celebritizing terrorists or wannabe terrorists.

[Deleted]

well, it's a profile of him and how he became a "monster." not sure what else they'd show that would somehow be more appropriate. showing the victims seems like an even more odd choice. and RS, in particular, often has close up facial portraits for its covers.

while i'm not down with "celebritizing" criminals and terrorists, i do find this particular terrorist intriguing in that he seemed to be so americanized (and became a citizen) and to follow the trajectory of a typical kid. how someone who is eating pizza at the neighbor's house one week could be plotting to destroy the neighborhood the next IS fascinating.

[froggy76]

He looks like a super cool rock star. I'm not a fan.

[Deleted]

Jul 17, 2013 10:01:27 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

I don't understand why we would be upset?  I mean that literally.  I don't understand what those who are upset are upset about.  I can't think of what the reason would be.  Can someone fill me in?

A few on my FB feed are outraged, saying that other terorists will see that he got a magazine cover and decide that they also want to get on a magazine cover. Basically that noone should ever know the names of terrorists.

All of it makes no sense to me and I do not understand the outrage at all.

[lilmgirl]

Jul 17, 2013 9:21:54 GMT -5 LoveTrains said:

Jul 17, 2013 8:46:06 GMT -5 hellfreezesovertour said:

I see humanity in victims and responders. I think they would have been a better choice. I feel this is giving him the attention he wants. I 100% agree we should figure out what makes someone like this tick, but that's for psychologists and deep thinkers, not rolling stone.

Putting him on the cover is like porn for terrorists. Rolling Stone is playing a game of "how riled up can we get people" to try and sell their magazine. Let's not pretend RS is the one to figure out what radicalizes a terrorist. Esquire did a similar feature and used other photos.

RS is turning into the NY Post.

I agree with this. 

Putting him on the cover is like letting him win, IMO. I don't know why, its just a gut feeling of disgust I get when I see his photo. I am still having a hard time coming to terms with the whole thing, as are lots of folks in greater Boston. I actually find their choice of cover photo pretty horrifying.

But at the end of the day, I just won't buy rolling stone magazines (not that I did before) and carry on with my life. 

Ditto

[karinothing]

Jul 17, 2013 10:01:27 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

I don't understand why we would be upset?  I mean that literally.  I don't understand what those who are upset are upset about.  I can't think of what the reason would be.  Can someone fill me in?

I don't really get this either. I mean I think its kind of odd becuase I am looking at a ton of other covers and they are all celebrities and Obama so he seems an odd choice. But I don't think people would complain if he was on the cover of Time magazine would they? They have had their share of horrible people on the cover. I guess in the end, I don't think its unsual for magazines to have people from current events on the cover.

Is it just becuase of how he looks? Would a mugshot have been better? I think as a PP mentioned this picture serves as a good reminder of the fact that hate/terrorism can take any form. The fact that someone could do this that looks like a kid you go to school with, is scary to a lot of people I think.

[karinothing]

Jul 17, 2013 10:08:12 GMT -5 @mjmksb04 said:

Jul 17, 2013 10:01:27 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

I don't understand why we would be upset?  I mean that literally.  I don't understand what those who are upset are upset about.  I can't think of what the reason would be.  Can someone fill me in?

A few on my FB feed are outraged, saying that other terorists will see that he got a magazine cover and decide that they also want to get on a magazine cover. Basically that noone should ever know the names of terrorists.

All of it makes no sense to me and I do not understand the outrage at all.

Bin laden has been on a ton of magazine covers. As was the Ft Hood shooter. The boys from Columbine. As was Ted Bundy and I am sure plenty of other horrible people.

[Deleted]

Jul 17, 2013 10:08:12 GMT -5 @mjmksb04 said:

Jul 17, 2013 10:01:27 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

I don't understand why we would be upset?  I mean that literally.  I don't understand what those who are upset are upset about.  I can't think of what the reason would be.  Can someone fill me in?

A few on my FB feed are outraged, saying that other terorists will see that he got a magazine cover and decide that they also want to get on a magazine cover. Basically that noone should ever know the names of terrorists.

All of it makes no sense to me and I do not understand the outrage at all.

i appreciate that this is all very fraught, but i'm pretty sure that the terrorists want us to be terrified and are motivated by irrational extremism.  do not most plan to die martyrs as the conclusion to their act of terror?  this is distinct, imo, from serial killers and copycat killers and the like who do have fame as a partial motive.

i know that this isn't what you're saying, but other people.

[LoveTrains]

Jul 17, 2013 10:01:27 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

I don't understand why we would be upset?  I mean that literally.  I don't understand what those who are upset are upset about.  I can't think of what the reason would be.  Can someone fill me in?

I will reiterate that I just had a gut feeling of disgust when I saw the cover. I absolutely agree with doing an article/profile, but I wouldn't have put his picture on the cover of the magazine.

I really can't explain my reaction as it is completely emotional and not rational. But I also know lots of other locals - people that were at the bombings, people who were in lockdown in Watertown, etc. My H was awake all night that night listening to the manhunt on the police scanner. 

I think the reason people are having these emotional reactions to the cover is because there is a sense that celebrities get to go on the cover of a magazine and that it is an honor to be on the cover. That is why there is an emotional, negative reaction to seeing Dzohkar on the cover. 

But like I said, I can't actually explain it because its not rational. it's emotional.

I don't really care to argue about my feelings either. They are my personal feelings, and anyone is free to disagree. That is all I am going to add to the conversation.

ETA: I think there is also the sense that Rolling Stone isn't a news magazine. I don't really read Rolling Stone, so I guess its not a fair judgement for me to make. Like I wouldn't be upset if I saw his picture on the cover of Newsweek or Time (do they even make it in print anymore?) but I would be upset if I saw the picture on the cover of Vogue or Maxim. Maybe that is an incorrect assumption that Rolling Stone isn't "serious" as I do know that they have some strong journalists there. 

[froggy76]

Jul 17, 2013 10:09:51 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

Jul 17, 2013 10:02:08 GMT -5 froggy76 said:

He looks like a super cool rock star. I'm not a fan.

Looking at the cover now.  I am certain they are taking the exact angle I thought they would.  He looks like an average american kid - because he WAS.

The subtitle of the article is:

How a popular, promising student was failed by his family, fell into radical Islam, and became a monster.

Totally newsworthy AND absolutely the right angle to take on this story.

/gavel

If you say so.  Like I said, I think he looks super cool in the pic.  Not at all like the "average american kid."  A Google image search shows tons of other images where he looks like an average kid- at his HS graduation, wrestling, etc.  Even some where he looks like an awkward teen.  In this pic, he looks cool and mysterious.  He could easily be the front man of a rock band. There is a reason why they chose this particular photo, and that is what bothers me.

At the end of the day, I don't really care all that much and I'm sure the article is great, but my first reaction was that I don't like the cover at all.

[cattledogkisses]

Jul 17, 2013 10:15:47 GMT -5 LoveTrains said:

Jul 17, 2013 10:01:27 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

I don't understand why we would be upset?  I mean that literally.  I don't understand what those who are upset are upset about.  I can't think of what the reason would be.  Can someone fill me in?

I will reiterate that I just had a gut feeling of disgust when I saw the cover. I absolutely agree with doing an article/profile, but I wouldn't have put his picture on the cover of the magazine.

I really can't explain my reaction as it is completely emotional and not rational. But I also know lots of other locals - people that were at the bombings, people who were in lockdown in Watertown, etc. My H was awake all night that night listening to the manhunt on the police scanner. 

I think the reason people are having these emotional reactions to the cover is because there is a sense that celebrities get to go on the cover of a magazine and that it is an honor to be on the cover. That is why there is an emotional, negative reaction to seeing Dzohkar on the cover. 

But like I said, I can't actually explain it because its not rational. it's emotional.

I don't really care to argue about my feelings either. They are my personal feelings, and anyone is free to disagree. That is all I am going to add to the conversation.

ETA: I think there is also the sense that Rolling Stone isn't a news magazine. I don't really read Rolling Stone, so I guess its not a fair judgement for me to make. Like I wouldn't be upset if I saw his picture on the cover of Newsweek or Time (do they even make it in print anymore?) but I would be upset if I saw the picture on the cover of Vogue or Maxim. Maybe that is an incorrect assumption that Rolling Stone isn't "serious" as I do know that they have some strong journalists there. 

I get this.  My mom was there that day, and I initially had the same gut reaction.  For the people who were closely affected by this I think it's much harder to separate that emotional response from the rational thought.

[Alyssa]

This isn't the first time RS has put a murderer on the cover.  If this was Time Magazine, I don't this it would have been an issue.

[froggy76]

Jul 17, 2013 10:22:33 GMT -5 @majorwife said:

Jul 17, 2013 10:19:53 GMT -5 froggy76 said:

If you say so.  Like I said, I think he looks super cool in the pic.  Not at all like the "average american kid."  A Google image search shows tons of other images where he looks like an average kid- at his HS graduation, wrestling, etc.  Even some where he looks like an awkward teen.  In this pic, he looks cool and mysterious.  He could easily be the front man of a rock band. There is a reason why they chose this particular photo, and that is what bothers me.

At the end of the day, I don't really care all that much and I'm sure the article is great, but my first reaction was that I don't like the cover at all.

can you pip some of the ones you think would have been better?

THIS is an average american kid:Attachment DeletedAttachment Deleted

[eddy]

Jul 17, 2013 10:24:14 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

Jul 17, 2013 10:15:47 GMT -5 LoveTrains said:

I will reiterate that I just had a gut feeling of disgust when I saw the cover. I absolutely agree with doing an article/profile, but I wouldn't have put his picture on the cover of the magazine.

I really can't explain my reaction as it is completely emotional and not rational. But I also know lots of other locals - people that were at the bombings, people who were in lockdown in Watertown, etc. My H was awake all night that night listening to the manhunt on the police scanner. 

I think the reason people are having these emotional reactions to the cover is because there is a sense that celebrities get to go on the cover of a magazine and that it is an honor to be on the cover. That is why there is an emotional, negative reaction to seeing Dzohkar on the cover. 

But like I said, I can't actually explain it because its not rational. it's emotional.

I don't really care to argue about my feelings either. They are my personal feelings, and anyone is free to disagree. That is all I am going to add to the conversation.

ETA: I think there is also the sense that Rolling Stone isn't a news magazine. I don't really read Rolling Stone, so I guess its not a fair judgement for me to make. Like I wouldn't be upset if I saw his picture on the cover of Newsweek or Time (do they even make it in print anymore?) but I would be upset if I saw the picture on the cover of Vogue or Maxim. Maybe that is an incorrect assumption that Rolling Stone isn't "serious" as I do know that they have some strong journalists there. 

It is a news magazine and a fairly well respected one.  It's sort of to music what The New Yorker is to literature.  

I love RS and I am not a huge music person. Their political articles are some of my favorite