General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Rolling Stone Cover? This is why it is wrong....warning Graphic Photo. [View all]thucythucy
(9,039 posts)and I don't think it was all that good. It certainly didn't answer any of the questions posed on the cover. And I don't see how it does anything at all "to identify and root out terrorism at its source."
Yeah, the kid's family life was fucked up, but so are the lives of millions of kids across the country. What made THIS particular kid go the route he did is still left up in the air. As I read it, the basic answer seemed to be, "His life was tough. Also, his big brother made him do it." Well, lots of people have tough lives and fucked up big brothers, Rolling Stone writer Mikel Gilmore among them (read his book "Shot in the Heart" and you'll see what I mean). They don't go out and set off bombs in the middle of crowded events.
The only NEW information contained in the article, as far as I could see, were a dozen or so gushing statements from anonymous friends, all along the lines of "He was such a sweet guy. What a dreamboat! Always so great to be around." Plus, he cried for a while after he woke up from surgery. What a fantastic insight into his personality! Then too, even the RS writer says, "But we don't know WHY he cried." Possibly because he was in pain?
This is "cutting edge" journalism in the same vein as all the stories we've seen over the years quoting folks saying, "He was such a quiet guy. Lovely neighbor. Family man. No one would ever suspect he would...." I mean, haven't we seen this basic theme a hundred times before?
I agree, we need to figure out why people do these sorts of terrible things. But this article doesn't do the job. It doesn't come close. And it certainly didn't merit being the cover story.
I expect more from Rolling Stone. As a long time subscriber, I know they often times do a great job covering serious issues.
This story wasn't one of those times.