I think it's in pretty bad taste. The article, in my opinion, tries to offer many reasons why we should feel sorry for this man, or even excuse his actions. The editroial note in the beginning is this: "Our hearts go out to the victims of the Boston Marathon bombing, and our thoughts are always with them and their families. The cover story we are publishing this week falls within the traditions of journalism and Rolling Stone’s long-standing commitment to serious and thoughtful coverage of the most important political and cultural issues of our day. The fact that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is young, and in the same age group as many of our readers, makes it all the more important for us to examine the complexities of this issue and gain a more complete understanding of how a tragedy like this happens. –THE EDITORS" Krystle Campbell, who was murder by Tsarnaev, was 29. Lu Lingzi was 23. Martin Richard was 8. Don't these people deserve to have their lives told? Why do we live in a world that honors people like Tsarnaev while ignoring, and I would say spitting on the graves of the victims?
I do agree with you guys that it was a poor choice. Perhaps using the pictures of the 3 people who died might have been better. I think using Tsarnaev's picture was simply a way to try to sell more copies.
Interesting and creative thesis; thinking outside the box, I like it. Isn't this just an exercise of one of the many freedoms so protected, so fought after, and so constantly in fear of being encroached in the US Constitution (freedom of the press)? If there is freedom without limit, then unfortunately, you have to take what you get, and a pic of the Boston Bomber is just that. Morally offensive: most probably. Allowed: absolutely.
I'm not saying it shouldn't be allowed, but the question was why are people so upset about this. I'm glad companies are refusing to sell this trash, because that is their right.
Those who were injured, as well as the family members of those who died on that terrible day in Boston, have been and are currently going through enough pain. But what Rolling Stone Magazine decided to do just makes things even worse for those affected by what these two killers did. Trauma therapists call it Secondary Wounding Experiences, which can be almost as bad as the original trauma itself.
I've heard a bit about the article itself, and it sounds like a well-considered piece of journalism. The cover photo is another matter. The cover photo was a strategic error. It was meant to stir controversy, and thus sell magazines. A grubbier photo might have worked. But that glamor shot of Tsarnaev seems to glorify him, and that just won't wash.
Fair warning, I'm going to play devil's advocate against my own prior statement now.... Yeah, which brings up a deeper issue of how we think of and classify things that are good from things that are bad. Why do we find offense in a sexy selfie of this boy, who in his worst photos is still a looker because frankly he's a good looking kid? Because we have a patently fucked, taught-from-birth ideology that ugly=bad and attractive=good. Yes, yes, we say that this isn't the case, but that's not what do. It's an emic lie. Every Disney Princess is gorgeous. Every knight who comes to her rescue is dreamy. The villain is invariably an old or ugly or bent or all of the above baddie who, in their moment of most heinous deceit, takes on the visage of someone physically attractive. There is shock that such a good looking kid could cause so much destruction, but why? Why is that part of our equation? If that's the case, then when an "ugly" person commits an atrocity, is it ok to then think, "Well, of course, I mean just look at'um!" This is true, but the fact that it's revelatory to anyone is a scathing indictment.
Frankly, I don't see what the big deal is. Perhaps it's because I'm not an American, but even still, I remember hearing about this as it was happening, remember all the searches they did in Boston, the desperado shootout, etc. Maybe if somebody blew up the CN Tower and I saw his face plastered on a magazine, I'd feel differently. I think that, in terms of the article, The Rolling Stone was correct to explore the factors that compelled him to radicalization. Terrorists are people too, and I always find it fascinating to hear their background stories, and how ideology metastasized in a person's mind into some deadly tumor. It's neat to have a case study like this, not just because it's good research material for writers like us, but also, it reminds us of the fact, that really, we're not all so different. Sure, no one on this website (hopefully) is going to orchestrate a terrorist attack, but how much pushing would it take, and how many external influences would be needed, to drive somebody to doing that? How malleable is the human psyche, and how stalwart are our set of morals? It raises good questions, as good journalism should.
The idea you can get your picture on the cover of Rolling Stone for committing a massacre is bound to do more harm than all the 'good' the RS editors believe they are doing with the article and said stimulated conversation. I'm sure there were other cover photo options, the one they chose was unfortunate.
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/18/us/massachusetts-tsarnaev-photos/index.html?sr=fb071913dzhokharphotos930a Is this any better? Boston cop's revenge warning - disturbing content in the CNN link above
Wait a minute...some of you actually think this guy is attractive? http://www.thefrisky.com/2013-07-18/rolling-stones-article-on-dzhokhar-tsarnaev-makes-it-clear-patriarchy-was-at-the-root-of-his-problems/
I live two towns away from Boston, and Krystle Campbell went to school with my older brother and my friends (I generally don't hang out with people I went to school with. Long story short, my brother and I have all mutual friends, and they are all three to four years older than me). Her father bought his shoes for the funeral at the store in which I work. Bottom line: this was all in my backyard and I was directly effected by this while it was happening. Everyone around me in the greater Boston region need to shut the hell up and get over this. The editors of that magazine were DOING THEIR JOB. Yeah, they portray Dzhokhar as a human, but that's because he is. Just because he killed four people doesn't make him of a different species. He has a family he loves, and everyday problems just like the rest of us.The difference is he wanted to cause harm to other people. Does everyone forget about Timothy McVaeigh? He was born and raised in this country, and killed HUNDREDS of people during the Oklahoma City bombing. How many magazines had his face on the cover? How many books were written in relation to his crimes? Dzhokhar only killed four, and we should consider ourselves lucky the number is that low. People are making a big deal about this for no reason.
I think it whould be more tastefully to have the victims faces on the cover. The artical is a good reminder not to trust pot smoking conspericy theory peddlers. And I whould still pay good money to smash his face in with a bat.
