Rolling Stone’s Boston Bomber Cover Is Brilliant

[morningfog]

Rolling Stone has unveiled its next cover, featuring a dreamy photo of Boston bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, and many people have erupted in outrage. Some critics say the image depicts Tsarnaev as a kind of celebrity; others believe it turns him into a martyr. Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick called the cover “out of taste,” while CVS has banned the issue “out of respect for the victims of the attack and their loved ones.” A smaller chain of New England stores is also boycotting the magazine for “glorify[ing] evil actions.” Never mind that the picture itself once appeared on the front page of the New York Times; when Rolling Stone uses it, they’re “tasteless,” “trashy,” and “exploitative.”

As the Washington Post’s Erik Wemple points out, the image is exploitative—but it isn’t just exploitative: It’s also smart, unnerving journalism. By depicting a terrorist as sweet and handsome rather than ugly and terrifying, Rolling Stone has subverted our expectations and hinted at a larger truth. The cover presents a stark contrast with our usual image of terrorists. It asks, “What did we expect to see in Tsarnaev? What did we hope to see?” The answer, most likely, is a monster, a brutish dolt with outward manifestations of evil. What we get instead, however, is the most alarming sight of all: a boy who looks like someone we might know.

Judging from the article itself, the image is disconcertingly apt. The story, a two-month investigative report by Janet Reitman, tracks Tsarnaev’s tragic, dangerous path from a well-liked student to a monster, focusing on the increasing influence of radical Islam. (The headline on the cover suggests as much; those immediately outraged by the picture might do well to read the accompanying text.) That slide from likable teenager to troubled murderer is a potent narrative—and not a new one. Time magazine profiled the Columbine shooters through a similar lens, calling them “the monsters next door” on their cover and asking, “What made them do it?”

Few people complained, however, when the Columbine shooters graced the cover of Time, perhaps in part because that magazine is devoted primarily to news, whereas Rolling Stone devotes more space to music and culture. And it’s certainly true that Rolling Stone’s cover is prime celebrity real estate; many forget that the late Michael Hastings’ explosive piece on General Stanley McChrystal was tucked in an issue featuring Lady Gaga on the cover.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2013/07/17/boston_bomber_rolling_stone_cover_with_dzokhar_tsarnaev_is_good_journalism.html?fb_ref=sm_fb_share_chunky_bottom

[RC]

1. How dare a 'terrorist' look human. The nerve.

Where's the thick head gear, the hate in the eyes, the AK-47?

[SunSeeker]

58. The pic RS chose was a glamour shot, not reality:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57594451/dramatic-images-of-tsarnaevs-last-stand/

[marions ghost]

2. K&R

Usually RS has entertainment celebrities on the cover, people who are admired. So it does mess with your head. I see why some people might be offended, assuming the RS cover to be positive cultural space. But it gets attention to the article and I see the point about the conflict between the image--the "boy who looks like someone we might know"--and the monstrous reality.

[morningfog]

3. The other point is it will sell the magazine and drive traffic to the story,

which has its own value.

[marions ghost]

7. Yes--that's what all magazine covers try to do of course,

controversy sells. It's walking a fine line, but since they link it to an investigative article, I'm OK with it. But the point is kind of subtle so I understand the backlash.

[geckosfeet]

13. Not in MA..

[morningfog]

14. Ironically, every MA/Boston new outlet has been running it. Never has a Rolling Stone

cover been so prevelant in a city. And, articles on the cover all link to the story. Traffic is being driven there, yes even from Boston.

BTW, I live here and think the over-reaction to the cover is second only to the over-reaction of the manhunt.

[geckosfeet]

15. Ha ha. At least six major store chains have refused to sell it.

[elehhhhna]

5. yeah, not sure what they mean by that

disturbing and effective cover though, imo

[ejpoeta]

52. have heard a lot of comments about it being like jim morrison cover.

not sure how.... other than they both have dark curly hair. people seem to want to be outraged. knee jerk reaction. many of the people who have been bitching never even read the article. now you have stores refusing to carry it. and some even saying they won't carry rolling stone for the foreseeable future either. it may be upsetting, but i have been posting to these threads about how the message is important and people are just reacting instead of paying attention. do you want to figure out how to prevent a future terrorist? I do. It's terrible what happened, but it is also important to find out WHY and how.

[chimpymustgo]

6. Agree, it's brilliant, provocative journalism.

I don't get the outrage. How many covers has OBL been on?

I'd really like to understand who this young man is, and what exactly happened leading up to the bombing. Lots of questions remain. We should be bigger than this.

[warrant46]

45. It's being whipped up by TV and the MSM themselves

To increase their ratings. Like the one I just saw where some slack jaw off the street was being asked what he thought.

That guy's last read was either "Dick and Jane go to the Zoo" or maybe "My Pet Goat"

[RZM]

9. Here's my theory

Tsarnaev kind of looks like a youthful Bob Dylan. Dylan's real last name is Zimmerman. The name Zimmerman has been all over the place lately, causing music types to think about Bob Dylan.

Somebody at Rolling Stone put all this together and got the idea to use the physical resemblance between the two to create a cover with Tsarnaev that's also an homage to their Dylan covers in the 60s.

[babylonsister]

10. Remains to be seen: people who live in the Boston area are pissed, and

Lawrence O'Donnell is just about to go off on this.

[ileus]

11. They're trying to sell mags to girls who think he's too cute

to be a terrorist...

[Agschmid]

36. Doubtful...

Kind of a niche market and it would not sell very many. Now with this media blitz this issue will likely sell quite a few copies.

[grilled onions]

12. Perhaps It's About The Looks Of A monster/terrorist

We tend to think all bad guys look evil,with the horns of Satan, with a horrible face and a body to match. However in real life a terrorist/bomber/monster criminal could look just like the guy(or even girl) down the street. It's very scary for many when they are used to seeing photos of such criminals in line up shots or the most ugly/frightening picture papers can find, only to see such a cover on Rolling Stone.

[LuckyLib]

16. Our media are bought and owned. Some folks think they can control every corner of media coverage.

The outrage comes from reactionary idiots, and folks who know nothing of RS's strong history of investigative journalism.

[Agschmid]

37. +1

[drgoodword]

66. Another +1

I'm surprised that so many seem to have forgotten Rolling Stone magazine's history of controversial and ground-breaking journalism. RS was once the most radical and progressive of mainstream media publications, and in recent years has regained some of that former journalistic edge with hard-hitting pieces like their expose of General Stanley A. McChrystal and a rightful evisceration of Goldman Sachs in relation to the Great Recession.

This soft-focus, rock star-ish cover photo of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is the perfect launch point for an intelligent investigation into how a regular, seemingly happy kid living a fairly comfortable life in America could become radicalized enough to carry out one of the worst terrorist attacks in American history.

Alas, in an age where public communication is dominated by 10-second sound bites and 140 character writings, there is no time or patience to look beyond the cover, read and digest the whole essay, and only after thorough reflection articulate a considered and well-reasoned opinion.

[lastlib]

17. My objection to it

Tsarnaev hasn't been convicted of anything in court--this depiction of him as a "monster" makes it harder for him to get a fair trial, with an impartial jury. It "poisons the well," to borrow a phrase--convicting him in the public's mind before he's had his day in court. We don't need this stuff out there until he's had his trial.

My two cts.

[temmer]

28. I agree - but

the cover is ambivalent: in the text he's called a monster, but the picture shows him in a very attractive fashion. Most people probably only know the blurred footage from Boylston street, and he doesn't look that attractive there, making it easy for everybody to accept that he's a terrorist. So the cover might in fact improve his chances.

The defense team seems to try to fight this "monster" image. A few weeks ago, his first phone call to his mother was reported, including an audio snippet. This emotional story was surely a tactical move by his lawyers. Judy Clarke is experienced with clients who "quickly are made by the media into the most hated men in America" (Stephen Jones, Tim McVeigh lawyer).

[lastlib]

47. "monster" is not an ambivalent term.

[hrmjustin]

18. They should have used a mug shot.

[SunSeeker]

19. It was a tasteless cover and vapid, pointless journalism.

If Jackoff (sp?) had looked like his older brother, and not like a young Bob Dylan, he would not be on a Rolling Stones cover. And of all the pictures out there of Tsarnaev, they pick the one "dreamy" shot and proceeded to glorify him. As Lawrence O'Donnell said tonight, Rolling Stone claimed they did the story to explain why Tsarnaev turned into a terrorist, but they never did. They just interviewed those same clueless friends of his (already interviewed by media) who had no idea what he was up to. The best Rolling Stone could do to answer the question was to get one of his friends, who never met the older brother, to speculate that the older brother "must have brainwashed him." Oh, and they got some idiot professor who never met either brother to speculate that it was "federal policy" that drove them to do the bombing. That is not brilliant journalism. That is vapid fill to justify utilizing a provocative cover to sell magazines (i.e. make money)--at the expense of the pain of those who lost family members and limbs in that bombing.

Rolling Stone should be ashamed of itself, and apparently it is. At the last minute, they pulled the author of the piece from appearing on Lawrence O'Donnell, after happily offering him up to the show yesterday.

[Spider Jerusalem]

22. Did you read the article?

If not, you aren't really in any position to comment on whether it's "vapid journalism". You also seem to have, how does one say, comprehension problems? The text on the cover says "from popular student to monster", that's hardly "glorifying". The New York Times used the same image, front page, above the fold; were they "glorifying"?

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

23. Larry O'Donnell read it

He wasn't impressed.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/45755883/ns/msnbc-the_last_word/vp/52504873#52504873

[Spider Jerusalem]

25. Must be nice not needing to think for yourself (n/t)

[JI7]

29. i trust o'donnell but am willing to hear if you had a different opinion

of the article.

[Spider Jerusalem]

33. .....

:headdesk:

My point is that you should read it and form your own opinion.

[JI7]

34. i might based on what people say, but i don't read every book, article etc

or watch everything. sometimes i do it based on reviews. based on what o'donnell said i have no interest . but if i hear from others i trust that it's worth reading and why then i might.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

43. I planned to read it myself at some point

However, if it's going to be a multi-page ballwashing of the kid, with a bunch of bromides about what a nice guy he was, I might have to pass and find something more productive for my time.

Seeing as you obviously read it, why don't you enlighten me as to where Lawrence got it wrong?

[Bluenorthwest]

60. The killer is called an extremist, bomber and a monster on the freaking cover!

What about that suggests it is about what a nice guy he was? Monster? Bomber? Extremist? Which is a 'ballwashing' term?
It is amazing to me that anyone just parrots what some media chatter box told then to think. 'Larry says bad! Ballwashing!!'

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

63. Did YOU read the article?

Holy shit, why don't YOU answer the fucking question of the day now?

Because I read it this afternoon. It gave me no new fucking insight whatsoever other than girls think he's cute and nice, his friends still can't believe it, and apparently he had a right be angry because some sociology professor thinks the government did nothing for him (aside from giving his family public assistance). Oh no.....LARRY WAS RIGHT! OH FUCK NO, THAT CAN'T BE POSSIBLE HE'S A TALKING HEAD WHAT THE FUCK SHALL I DO???!!!!!

I defended it yesterday because of the cover description thinking there was more inside. Then they gave the kid a pass and said it just must be the brother's influence because he was the asshole and Tsarnev's really still a good misguided kid. An absolute fluff piece. Really disappointing for Rolling Stone compared to what they've been doing lately.

[SunSeeker]

24. Did you?

Did you read about how the author described how girls were crazy about him (even though not none of his alleged girlfriends was named). And did they have to use THAT photo? Just because the NYTimes used it on one edition of their daily newspaper does not justify blowing it up and putting it on the cover of a glossy magazine.

You are welcome to disagree with me, but insulting me by saying I have "comprehension problems" is wrong, rude and adds nothing to the discussion, other than to reveal what kind of person you are.

[JI7]

30. what most likely happened was

someone or a few of them were talking about how that pic looks like it could easily be a rolling stone cover pic. they wanted to put the pic on first and then had to come up with some article or something to go along with it.

[Capt. Obvious]

40. What most likely happened was

people smash their keyboards in fits of rage over stupid shit and say even more stupid shit.

At least the stupid shit on Twitter is limited to 140 characters.

[Spider Jerusalem]

31. So?

The New York Times said the same thing:

Mr. Tsarnaev was a skilled deflector of curiosity about his personal affairs. He rarely talked about his background except to say that he was Chechen or had lived in Russia. He was popular — “he had a lot of girls hitting on him,” said Junes Umarov, 18, a close friend who is also of Chechen descent — but even other close friends could not say whether he had a girlfriend.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/05/us/dzhokhar-tsarnaevs-dark-side-carefully-masked.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

I don't see how that's "glorifying" as much as it is reporting facts; the idea that he was popular and well-liked by his fellow students and teachers, and by all accounts seemed like a promising young man, makes the case all the more troubling (there wouldn't be all this outrage over the photo and accompanying story if he'd been a pimply-faced geek and an eccentric and isolated introvert, like Adam Lanza or Jared Loughner); here's someone who seems to have a lot of things going for him, and in some ways to be an excellent illustration of America's promise to immigrants...and then, he goes terribly wrong and becomes a bomber and mass killer; the question of "why?" is one that it's useful to ask, if only because there may be other young men like him out there.

[DonCoquixote]

35. to be fair

To get your picture on the cover of Rolling Stone is the sort of positive coup that agents kill for. It makes the difference between a Madonna that sticks around forever and the ten thousand wanna bees. Yes, Rs has journalism, and damned fine journalism, BUT, it's also hard to ignore that to be on "the cover of the Rolling Stone" is usually an honor.

[muriel_volestrangler]

38. Do you think Tsarnaev will make money from it?

I don't. It's not an 'honor'; it's a good way of pushing your product. That's what agents are after. I don't think being called "the bomber" in big print, and "a monster", is likely to help his 'not guilty' plea. As I've said in another thread, in the UK, the Rolling Stone editors would be prosecuted for prejudicing the trial against him with those words.

[surrealAmerican]

50. Watch those metaphors:

"coup", "kill for" ? Given the context here, you may be communicating something other than intended.

[SunSeeker]

57. But they didn't answer the "why" question, so what was the point of the article? nt

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

64. Exactly

Well, there was a "why", basically a passed buck to the brother.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

44. The mantra has been "Did you read the article?"

Now that it's apparent the article isn't bringing much of anything new that hasn't already been reported to the table, we're back to wondering why the need to make a front cover article about the kid. I expect better from Rolling Stone, because a lot of what they write is good stuff.

[SunSeeker]

56. Exactly. The Matt Taibbi articles ARE brilliant

Rolling Stone can do a lot better than this crap.

[Major Hogwash]

32. I agree 100% with your comment about it.

Not only did Rolling Stone try to glorify Tsarnaev by using this specific picture, but they were only doing it in order to sell their magazine!!!
If the author had wanted to use that picture with the article, they could have chosen to include that specific picture inside of the magazine, instead of on the cover.
So, it was a business decision for them to use it on the cover, in a blatent, naked attempt to sell more magazines!!

Tsarmaev was responsible for killing at least 3 people, maybe more, seriously injuring at least 130 people, and causing one of the largest manhunts in recent American history.

Rolling Stone blew it!!
Big time!

[MNBrewer]

46. Oh MY GOD11!!!

Trying to actually SELL A MAGAZINE? The HORROR! The sheer horror of selling a magazine! Have they NO SHAME???

Ship them to Guantanamo for TREEEEEEESON!!11!!

[Paladin]

49. There's No Such Thing As Bad Publicity.

Thanks for your contribution.

[mc51tc]

20. Timothy McVeigh made the cover of Time over years

Time Magazine did it on 3 different covers of Oklahoma City bomber, Timothy McVeigh.

http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19970616,00.html

http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20010521,00.html

http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19950501,00.html

[alp227]

21. they all show him wearing a prison jumpsuit

unlike the rolling stone cover. As today's Boston Globe editorial puts it: "This is less about images than about the frames we put around them... the glamour of it all — tragic or ironic, intended or accidental, it doesn’t really matter — is there for anyone to see...Make no mistake, this is a legitimate story for a magazine...The cover is not: It’s marketing. The unseemly fascination with Tsarnaev — the reason he is a kind of rock star to a woefully naive (and hopefully very small) segment of the public — stems in part from his gentle good looks but more from the distance between those looks and the crimes with which he has been charged."

[JI7]

27. yes, it's like putting one of those Blonde Jodi Arias pics on Glamour

or Cosmo . and then trying to claim it was about some serious thing when the article is mostly about idiots who think she is hot and buy her art and other things she is doing to make money.

[JI7]

26. that's time magazine

[dogknob]

39. Please... for God's sake, out of respect for the victims...

...can we please start talking about our broken culture that produces more and more broken people... and how we're going to fix it? Please?

I am really sick of constantly being told that I have to stick my head as far as I can into the sand and call upon superhuman reserves of denial "out of respect for the victims" over and over again...

It's almost like the people who are "outraged" about the cover of Rolling Stone would be a lot happier if we all just continued to let this horrible shit happen over and over again forever, actually getting angry on those rare occasions when something approaching "real" escapes from our well-oiled propaganda machine and into the public consciousness.

Never mind the nonsense about how terrorists are all supposed to be ugly, if this cover pisses you off that bad, go hide in a church basement and never come out again... please.

[AngryOldDem]

41. I don't get the outrage over this.

This picture looks like every other one I've seen of him -- smug and arrogant. RS isn't glorifying him.

What does piss me off are the stores that are refusing to carry RS because of this cover. I don't like being told what I can or can't buy and/or read by my retailer.

We need to make an effort to understand why people like Tsarnev do what they do, even if it's because at the end of the day they're douchebag assholes.

Was there this much heartburn when RS had Charles Manson on the cover?

[malaise]

42. I only have one question for those who are outraged?

Go back and check previous Rolling Stone and indeed Time magazine covers.

[cherokeeprogressive]

48. He's incredibly hawt. n/t

[librechik]

51. I hope everyone is aware that this same pic was on the front page New York Times

without uproar. For some reason that used to count as fame and glamour.

Since its inception, Rolling Stone has received non stop attacks against its journalism. It just gets a little too close to the truth, unlike the people attacking it, IMO.

[AllINeedIsCoffee]

53. It doesn't offend me in the slightest.

But I'm not going to tell people they're wrong for the way they feel.

[Skwmom]

54. Trayvon Martin was judged on his looks and his life cut tragically short.

If it had been the bomber who Zimmerman had seen walking that night, do you think Zimmerman would have prejudged him as a dangerous criminal who needed to be pursued?

Rolling Stones is an excellent magazine!

[avebury]

55. What the cover points out is the fact that

you can not have a preconceived notion of what a terrorist looks like. A terrorist could be anybody, even the neighbor next door. A lot of people don't like that because they think of them as the devil incarnate.

I would think that his cover would play well with the MIC, 1%, and Government's desire to continually instill fear amongst the masses in order to continue to erode our civil liberties and Constitutional rights.

[BlueStater]

59. The shithead shouldn't be on the cover at all.

He doesn't deserve fame or infamy. He deserves nothing. People shouldn't even know the scumbag's name. And he definitely shouldn't be gracing the cover of a magazine which has also featured covers of some of the most famous people in the world.

[Bluenorthwest]

61. Some folks are upset because the cold, smug, unfeeling image of a killer they find

to be 'dreamy' and such. They are, as folks often are, upset and angry that they are attracted to such a guy.
I find his photo to be very off putting, he looks filled with simmering rage and it is a person I'd avoid at great lengths, but some can't catch their breath as they describe how sexy they find him, dreamy, 'like Dylan or Morrison' no less.
I think those who find him 'dreamy like Jim Morrisson' need to get some help or at least a date.

[ErikJ]

62. Now you know why we need NSA surveillance.

The US is a very open society and at the same time hitting hornets nests all over the world. Even our next door neighbor like this guy could be the next 911 suicidal terrorist ----or worse.

When we stop our global imperialistic aggressions for resources we can stop spying on our citizens.

[PaulKersey]

65. But

pretty bad taste.