So Rolling Stone magazine decided to put the Boston Marathon Bomber (the surviving brother) on their August 1, 2013 cover. What do you think? I've seen comment that it looks a little "Jim Morrison-ish" If you didn't see the words "The Bomber," what would you think? Nice looking guy. Perhaps an up and coming musical artist?
But no. He's a terrorist. He moved to our country as a child, had a promising academic and athletic career here in the United States and then decided to blow it all. Literally. He and his older brother are responsible for planting the bomb at the Boston Marathon, killing and maiming a number of people. Does this cover seem to glamorize him?
Here's how Rolling Stone justifies their cover choice:
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.
Hmmm...so in the interest of legitimate journalism, Rolling Stone wants to explore Tsarnaev's dark side. Here's the rub: log on to rollingstone.com, and you'll see the sub-tabs on tops: Music - Politics - Movies & TV - Reviews - Artists - Blogs - Videos. Look down at the bottom of the page and you'll see their "channels": pretty much the same list sans blogs. My point: since when did Rolling Stone decide to become, ahem, a serious news source? My advice: stick to the concert reviews, album reviews. Tell us about the up and coming rock bands. Maybe an update on country singer Randy Travis' condition (viral infection of the heart, stroke), perhaps a profile of the late Cory Monteith...important news to the entertainment field, no doubt.
A terrorist? Not entertainment. Not hero-worthy. Rolling Stone should stick to what it does best: cover the entertainment industry. Putting Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on the cover of Rolling Stone - an entertainment magazine - is NOT the same thing as Time magazine (news magazine) as putting Osama bin Laden on the cover, despite assertions to the contrary. Apples and oranges, people.
"Rolling Stone...gonna find my picture on the cover....Rolling Stone....gonna buy five copies for my mother..." (Dr. Hook, 1973)
I'm not buying it...neither their statement, nor the magazine on the newsstand.
