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.
Is just an insult to the families of the families of those killed. An ode to violence.
I read it.
All if it.
Did you?
I can't fathom how anyone who read it could come to that conclusion unless they didn't comprehend the English language.
An honest look into the mind of a killer is uncomfortable, but nothing in that article in any way glorified violence of any kind.
B.
Anyone who knows me knows that I do not speak English, but I will try to highlight the same my, and I repeat my, point of view.
What I context to the directors of the newspaper, not is the content of the article, but the cover di the front page.
The article is unexceptionable, but you could avoid decicare the cover to that person, usually dedicated to characters from the world of music and not only that they are presented as positive to the readers.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I put myself in the shoes of the parents of Martin, and even though someone may not like it, I side with them.
I want to add that I know this magazine for many years, one of the absolute best in the music world, but on this occasion, I disagree with the choice of newspaper to publish this hero in negative on the cover.
From a commercial perspective, the choice was As Well, because the whole world speaks of this fact.
The article was very good journalism. Understanding who this person was, and how he became something else is important. I do not agree with those who think there should have been no story
The cover is different. I think it's primary intent was to enflame; gin things up and cause a stir. How many saw the cover? Many more than read the story. Yes, the photo is real. Putting it on the cover was poor judgment.
The cover of Rolling Stone has a singular place in American pop culture. It's the signal that you have arrived as a pop star. There's even a song about it. This young man is not the latest bad boy pop star. He's a monster.
Rolling Stone did this once before. They put the monster Charles Manson on the cover.
The reaction was similar.
I guess it comes down to this for me:
1) what is the purpose of a cover?
Simple - to tell you what is inside. Covers often show bad people, that doesn't mean those bad people are being glorified, it means that there is an important story about that person inside. The story may be good, or it may be bad.
2) what is the purpose of photography in a magazine?
Simple - to enhance the themes of the stories. To make them more real. What is the story here? The story is that a very ordinary, kind, and even cute kid was turned into a "monster" (to use the word from the cover). We like to think loonies are obvious, noticeable, that you'd recognise one on the street, the article strips people of that fantasy, and the photo helps it to do that.
3) What is the purpose of a good magazine article?
To inform, to make you think, and to inspire discussion.
Win, win, win, and again, the photo on the cover really helps with this. Not because of the dumb right-wing reactionaries, but because it is supposed to make us uncomfortable. He's cute, but he's a murder.
The bottom line is that the photo is real, it shows one aspect of who this kid really was. The photo is not gratuitous, it's not there just to be offensive, it's there to help tell a story that I think needs to be told.
I have gained respect for Rolling Stone because of this, not lost it. I have not lost any respect for the Fox News nuts, because you can't lose what you never had
B.
The same can be said for Rolling Stone's cover...(brmstn69)
They were right to do it for Manson, and they right to do it now. This is no ordinary edition of Rolling Stone, this is a very special edition, and the cover needs to reflect that.
Is is that you think there should have been no image on the cover to match the biggest story of the year? Or just that you wanted a pic that makes him look evil instead of how he really looked?
Bigsal - Rolling Stone is not just a music magazine though - they do investigative news pieces too. When General McCrystal was exposed a few years ago it was in Rolling Stone Magazine (http://refhide.com/?http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-runaway-general-20100622).
I'm still wondering your issue with the cover is that it included the bomber at all? Or if it's with the particular shot of him they chose to use?
B.
This annoyed me, I admit, and I expressed those who were my feelings about it.
I guess it comes down to this for me:
1) what is the purpose of a cover?