jump to last post 1-6 of 6 discussions (18 posts)

Rolling Stones Cover of Tsarnaev

  1. LauraGT profile image87
    LauraGTposted 4 years ago

    What do you think about Rolling Stone's cover photo of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev (the surviving brother of the boston bombings)?

    1. profile image0
      Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Fox interviewed the mother of some of the bombing victims.   She was offended by the cover.    And rightly so.   I dunno what the content of the article in Rolling Stone is,  but the cover said something that indicated sympathy for the bomber's plight.    The victims' Mom said they should be showing the policeman and/or other people who were heroes in that incident on the cover of the magazine instead of the bomber.
      I think she's right.
      And it's appalling that there were protestors at the bomber's hearing.    What the heck is wrong with today's society?   So many people want to show sympathy for terrorists!    Crazy they are, or wicked.

      1. Uninvited Writer profile image81
        Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        The article does not give him any sympathy at all. In fact they call him a monster. I think they were trying to say that people are surprised that a terrorist looks like that.
        That being said, I don't think it was the best choice of covers.

    2. rhamson profile image76
      rhamsonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I think it was an effort to humanize the terrorist and a picture of him away from his deeds was the intent. I am only left with what kind of human being is this that could perpetrate such brutal violence on total strangers? His picture has little affect on me and my opinion of him. When you listen to the ranting of his parents you get a glimpse into how this sick individual was formed.

      Many have real issues with this government and society but violence is never the way to handle or change them. Tsarnaev lacked this understanding of our culture and reverted to what he was raised under albeit he was not in his native country all that long. But his brother and parents educated him as to what his beginnings were.

    3. pagesvoice profile image88
      pagesvoiceposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      The recent cover photo on Rolling Stones magazine is disturbing and may even subliminally promote a cult like following of Tsarnaev. However, in a country that protects free speech and freedom of the press, Rolling Stones was within their rights to publish the photo on their cover. Conversely, stores have the same right to decline placing the magazine on the shelves of their businesses. I know that under no circumstances would I purchase this particular issue.

    4. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Well the cover does call him a monster so I really don't think it's supposed to be supporting him.

    5. Disappearinghead profile image84
      Disappearingheadposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I really can't understand what the fuss is all about. The mag is running with a cover story about how a student became a bomber, so its only natural to publish his photo on the front cover. If the mag also had the intention to present an image that questions the stereotypical image of a fundamentalist and terrorist, then they have made a good effort.

  2. Zelkiiro profile image86
    Zelkiiroposted 4 years ago

    ...Rolling Stone's still around?

    This is 2013, right?

    1. FatFreddysCat profile image90
      FatFreddysCatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Beat me to it. I haven't even glanced at a Rolling Stone mag since the early 90s.

      That said, people seem to think that Rolling Stone is trying to make this punk into a "rock star," but Rolling Stone has never been just a "rock music" magazine. They've always devoted a fair amount of pages to political coverage / current affairs/ news reporting.

      If that same photo had been on the cover of Time or Newsweek (wait...do either of those still exist?) would there have been the same outcry?

    2. Mighty Mom profile image90
      Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Yep. Mother Jones, too.
      Remember 2012, Mitt Romney and the 47 percent?
      Newsweek, however, is no longer in print.

  3. handymanbill profile image60
    handymanbillposted 4 years ago

    I believe in the right to free Speech. The right for nay Magazine to publish what they want. Also the right for people to buy what ever Magazine that they wish to buy. If you don't want to read about it don't buy it. Then the magazine looses money and maybe won't write this type of story again. As for me I would not buy this Magazine. These magazines print this sort of stories in order to get more people to buy them. How many people do you think will buy it just to see what they have to say??

  4. Reality Bytes profile image90
    Reality Bytesposted 4 years ago

    And I thought the controversy would be in the statement "The Bomber", not the picture.  Is he not the "Suspected Bomber" until convicted?


    1. Superkev profile image86
      Superkevposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I'm pretty sure they don't 'suspect' anyone else of being the bomber.

      Enough already with the politically correct niceties. He is what he is and what he has admitted to being.

      1. Reality Bytes profile image90
        Reality Bytesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Who is they?  Because there are many questions unanswered concerning this event!

        I would like to see the American system of justice remain intact.  Isn't it bad enough our president is already ordering the assassination of citizens with no charges placed against them?

  5. Mighty Mom profile image90
    Mighty Momposted 4 years ago

    A picture is worth a thousand words.
    If you look only at his face, you get the impression that Rolling Stone is "glorifying him."
    But that's how the guy looks. And that's the point. He doesn't LOOK like a crazy jihadist.
    He actually reminds me physically of Jim Morrison.
    Must be the curly locks.
    But when you read the words, it's clear where their story is going.

    1. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      +1 I think it was an interesting cover, it highlighted that terrorists don't necessarily fit our preconceptions of them.

      1. LauraGT profile image87
        LauraGTposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I think I would agree if I thought this picture aimed to make him look like a normal, average guy.  But, I think it actually does something else which is what is troublesome.  This picture makes him look sexy. Of all the pictures that I've seen of him, this is the only one that makes him look that way, and I think that's what's disturbing to many.

        Of course, Rolling Stone has the right to cover this story and, not having read it, it sounds like an interesting analysis, and one which I think would be eye-opening for many (rarely do criminals fit our stereotypes). But, portraying his as a sex symbol is just in poor taste. And, I do think it sends a rather bad message to others who may be calling out for attention through violent acts.  Remember, the Columbine kids staged their rampage in a way so that they would be caught on camera - that was purposeful.  I'm not sure if they planned to kill themselves, but they certainly wanted the world to see them.

  6. rebekahELLE profile image88
    rebekahELLEposted 4 years ago

    Did anyone read the article?  Rolling Stone has always been into investigative journalism, reporting on important political events, people.  The cover is the same image that the New York Times also used for one of their front page reports.  It's meant to be jarring and unsettling.  A terrorist doesn't have to look like the stereotypical Bin Laden type.  This one looked like a typical college student on a huge university campus.   I suggest reading the article.  Matt Taibbi also wrote a response in regard to the cover image that is worth reading.