I see a lot of people expressing outrage toward Rolling Stone for putting Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on the cover. I want to take a little room to say that people doing that are wrong.
Some of those folks are suggesting that Boston first responders would have been more appropriate cover subjects; however, Rolling Stone's cover story is about how Dzokhar became radicalized; it's an in-depth investigative piece about him, not a news report on the bombing itself. Given the subject of the story, it's appropriate for him to be on the cover. A cover showing first responders would have been misleading.
Some might object that the story should have been about the first responders, but that story has been done. Many stories have been done about the heroic actions of police, bystanders, and others.
This story is about one of the bombers, and Rolling Stone claims there are revelations about him in their story. I think there is an audience for that information. Haven't many people looked at pictures of Dzokhar Tsarnaev and wondered how he could have done what he did? Haven't similar stories been done in the past under similar circumstances? How about this cover story from Time?
Magazines have run cover stories on Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, Idi Amin, and more. Rolling Stone has had Charles Manson on the cover. Time named Adolf Hitler "Man of the Year."
For some the objection seems to be that it is Rolling Stone and it makes Dzhokhar Tsarnaev look like a rock star. Well first of all, he looks how he looks. Second, if you think Rolling Stone only covers music, you don't read it to begin with. When they put George Bush on the cover, did people complain that he was being glorified and made to look like a rock star? Was General McChrystal being glorified? When they ran a series of investigative pieces on the Wall Street debacle was Wall Street being made to look like a rock star? No.
A good-hearted friend of mine, and a Boston-area Criminology professor are among those suggesting that putting a mass murderer on the cover of a magazine may encourage young people to think they can get famous by committing murder. First, if you think that, will you please call for a boycott of People for putting reality-show veterans on their cover? I fear we are raising a generation who will seek fame by going on Big Brother. More seriously, if we are raising children who can't do the math around fame/suffering/morality, we have much bigger things to worry about than the cover of a magazine that (in my observation) serves a 20-40 year-old demographic. Or any magazine, for that matter.
If this cover rouses your emotions, don't call for people to boycott Rolling Stone when you never read it to begin with. Do something positive: write to another magazine to suggest that they do follow-up stories on victims and their families or profiles of some of the first responders, donate to the onefund (they have $60 million so far), mentor a troubled youth, take your kid to a ball game, or the ballet. Live a life that honors the victims, and don't waste your time on misguided anger.
Some of those folks are suggesting that Boston first responders would have been more appropriate cover subjects; however, Rolling Stone's cover story is about how Dzokhar became radicalized; it's an in-depth investigative piece about him, not a news report on the bombing itself. Given the subject of the story, it's appropriate for him to be on the cover. A cover showing first responders would have been misleading.
Some might object that the story should have been about the first responders, but that story has been done. Many stories have been done about the heroic actions of police, bystanders, and others.
This story is about one of the bombers, and Rolling Stone claims there are revelations about him in their story. I think there is an audience for that information. Haven't many people looked at pictures of Dzokhar Tsarnaev and wondered how he could have done what he did? Haven't similar stories been done in the past under similar circumstances? How about this cover story from Time?
Magazines have run cover stories on Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, Idi Amin, and more. Rolling Stone has had Charles Manson on the cover. Time named Adolf Hitler "Man of the Year."
For some the objection seems to be that it is Rolling Stone and it makes Dzhokhar Tsarnaev look like a rock star. Well first of all, he looks how he looks. Second, if you think Rolling Stone only covers music, you don't read it to begin with. When they put George Bush on the cover, did people complain that he was being glorified and made to look like a rock star? Was General McChrystal being glorified? When they ran a series of investigative pieces on the Wall Street debacle was Wall Street being made to look like a rock star? No.
A good-hearted friend of mine, and a Boston-area Criminology professor are among those suggesting that putting a mass murderer on the cover of a magazine may encourage young people to think they can get famous by committing murder. First, if you think that, will you please call for a boycott of People for putting reality-show veterans on their cover? I fear we are raising a generation who will seek fame by going on Big Brother. More seriously, if we are raising children who can't do the math around fame/suffering/morality, we have much bigger things to worry about than the cover of a magazine that (in my observation) serves a 20-40 year-old demographic. Or any magazine, for that matter.
Comments