MSN Music Blog - Reverb

"Rolling Stone" bomber cover gets misplaced outrage

Why is everyone trying to marginalize a legitimate news story?

By Mark C. Brown Jul 17, 2013 2:10PM
Rolling StoneHey, I'm all for bashing "Rolling Stone" and what it has chosen in the past to put on its cover, which in my opinion reached its nadir with Taylor Lautner a couple of years back.

But the magazine has a long history of investigative journalism, and it appears the latest story on the Boston bombings follows that tradition. One wonders how many people read the actual story before becoming outraged? Inthe recent work of Matt Tiabbi and the expose on Stanley McChrystal, "Rolling Stone" has gotten back to the journalism that made it great once upon a time.

Putting an already-widely-seen photo of the bombing suspect on the cover makes sense given the gravity of the story. But the instant Internet outrage has already forced editors to release a statement stating the obvious - no one's trivializing the tragedy.

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

Can anyone argue with that?

Apparently because RS covers entertainment, some feel it can't cover news. That's a bogus argument. Exhibit A: "Life Magazine," 1969. After plenty of Beatles and Marilyn Monroe cover photos, they went with this one.
Charles MansonHaving spent a few days in Boston recently I was proud and inspired to see Bostonians taking to the streets, living their normal lives, right at the very spots where the bombs were detonated just weeks ago. That's a proper reaction to a tragedy, not needless hand-wringing.

Do yourself a favor. Read the story, then decide if "Rolling Stone" did a public service or not.

Jul 18, 2013 4:48PM
what's funny is Rolling Stone has probably not had this much attention since the above cover in 1969. too bad, so sad!
Jul 18, 2013 4:36PM
Wonder how much money he made to be on the cover?
Jul 18, 2013 2:34PM

The title alone shows that Rolling Stone is trying to turn this murderer into the victim. He is an adult who made a choice to kill. Don't patronize us by saying that his family failed him, because he knew exactly what he was doing when he set those bombs down. The only thing this cover is good for, is target practice.

Jul 18, 2013 11:42AM
You people complain about anything and everything you don't agree with.  Don't like it don't buy it.  They don't have to please you.  If you have a subscription and are outraged, cancel.  They will get the point.

His photo was plastered all over the news for weeks when this happened.  How is this any different.  People saying it's too soon or the victims will have to see it, really a photo is their biggest issue right now.

Glad to see RS isn't backing down, to many companies these days back down the people who go online and gripe about stuff.  The majority of people don't vocalize themselves on-line, but they take the complainers opinion as majority opinion, and that simply isn't true.

Jul 18, 2013 10:24AM
You people kill me! It's not the picture that's going to sell magazines,, it's all the "controversy" you are raising about it. If nobody would have said anything, it would just be a normal issue, but no, you have to spout off about it and now it will probably be one of the best selling issues of all time. When you bring attention to something to something you don't like, or disagree with, you only make it bigger.
Jul 18, 2013 7:13AM
It's not the story it's the COVER!!  I'm sure he's even more proud of himself now.  It's rewarding a terrorist!!!  What kind of message does that send to the would be terrorists out there that would be  happy to KILL ALL OF US?
Jul 18, 2013 6:17AM
Who cares!  Who reads, "Rolling Stone"?
Jul 18, 2013 6:16AM
It would have been much better to split the page. Have the glamour shot on one side, and the shot of him being dragged out of the boat on the other.
Jul 18, 2013 6:00AM
In  response to:  "How dare I judge the intellect that do not agree me.   If you only look at pictures and not the context  then yes I can judge your intellect.  If all one does is react then yes I can judge your intellect and it doesn't compare with mine
Jul 18, 2013 4:51AM
If I see this on a newsstand, I will tear them up one by one.
Jul 18, 2013 3:02AM
thats fine to put in a story but dont put his face on the cover where kids, victims etc have to go into stores and see this crap..not fair..
Jul 18, 2013 12:12AM
he looks like a 60's folk music wannabe
Jul 18, 2013 12:04AM
Poor Choice RS! Stick to your genre! Not happy with you...
Jul 18, 2013 12:00AM
Better idea.  Don't buy Rolling Stone and save your money.  
Jul 17, 2013 11:50PM
RS could have done the story - word for word - and NOT put that photo on the cover (Willie Nelson, maybe?).  As it stands, if you are crazy and/or brutal enough, you can get your picture on the cover of the Rolling Stone.
Jul 17, 2013 11:49PM
Another magazine needs to put the pictures of the survivors with no limbs! Oh wait! there isn't one in this country who will do that! America is over folks, she died in 2008! And we let it happen!
Jul 17, 2013 11:38PM
Is ANYONE ever responsible for their own actions anymore ?  The answer seems to be ... NO.
Jul 17, 2013 11:36PM
So ONCE AGAIN  "its not his fault" ... its everyone else's around him.  And you wonder why this country is going down the toilet.
Jul 17, 2013 11:33PM
RS - Congrats! My family will never purchase one of your magazines again. Since you seem only motivated by greed, we'll fight you with the one thing you actually care about.
Jul 17, 2013 11:16PM
It has only been three months since that massacre, and feelings are still very raw and angry.  Deifying the innocent-looking face of the killer was not a smart move, no matter the content of the story within.  It would have been much wiser perhaps by having a split view on the cover--one with "sweetie killer" and the second being his mug shot, or instead, a photo of the bloody carnage that he caused.
Please help us to maintain a healthy and vibrant community by reporting any illegal or inappropriate behavior. If you believe a message violates theCode of Conductplease use this form to notify the moderators. They will investigate your report and take appropriate action. If necessary, they report all illegal activity to the proper authorities.
100 character limit
Are you sure you want to delete this comment?