• Our software update is now concluded. You will need to reset your password to log in. In order to do this, you will have to click "Log in" in the top right corner and then "Forgot your password?".
  • Forum moderator applications are now open! Click here for details.
  • Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best fan communities on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! We are not affiliated with The Pokémon Company or Nintendo.

Rolling Stone's 'Boston Bomber' cover issue

14,092
Posts
14
Years
In case you haven't heard, Rolling Stone magazine's latest issue features the surviving Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, in an apparently 'glorified' fashion. Which has set off a huge controversy in the U.S., prompting boycotts and even an organized burning of the copies of the magazine.

Did Rolling Stone go too far by showcasing Tsarnaev in this way? Or is the cover within the realm of tasteful journalism?
 
2,138
Posts
11
Years
Tasteful or not, they have every right to try to market the magazine. However, if vendors are not willing to sell their products in the store it is not a successful business move.

I watched a little soundbite of a rep from Rollingstone, and he claimed that the magazine wanted to tell a story of how an ingenuous and bright teen-aged boy underwent a metamorphosis into a monster. Thus, a picture was used that portrayed Tsarnaev in a more humanistic light to assimilate him with the average and decent human being that he once was. (the impression I got out of the brief coverage)

I am not offended by the magazine cover given the reason behind it as it questions why terrorism exists and opens the dialogue on the topic that terrorist are human, however, the magazine didn't seem to take into account the public reaction and the effects on the marketability. Though, it could be speculated that there was an intent to grab everyone's attention with a fairly controversial and bold subject. However, they did take the controversiality too far in respect to the public's tolerance or threshold for controversiality as it relates to marketability.

However, I would have to read the entire article to better grasp how the article relates to the cover.
 
10,769
Posts
14
Years
It was an attention grabbing move. The story and the journalism is fine. It's actually pretty good of them to look into what could make someone "normal" become a "monster."

The cover is glorifying because it's the cover. Whoever you put on the cover is going to appear to be a good/respectable/etc. person. They could have done some kind of side-by-side showing him as a normal person with, I dunno, something reminiscent of the bombings so you get that the magazine is interested in discussing the transition or the causes.
 
14,092
Posts
14
Years
I'd be willing to bet that most of the people freaking out don't realize that Rolling Stone did the same thing with Charles Manson back in the 70's, I believe, in another famously controversial move. But I highly doubt there's anything glorifying in the article about Tsarnaev.
 

Alexander Nicholi

what do you know about computing?
5,500
Posts
14
Years
People are stupid and take the cover of the magazine at face-value, like pure numbnuts.

They're like "OHMAHGAWD L00K DA BOMBER'S ON DA COVER DAT MUST MEEN THAT THEY'RE GLORIFYIN HIM OH DEER LORD LETS BURN IT"

No.
 
3,801
Posts
14
Years
  • Age 31
  • Seen Jun 29, 2019
If the cover of a magazine gets the people's attention that means that it's serving its intended purpose now whether that attention is good or bad. That and if Charles Manson was on the cover of a magazine such as this then it shouldn't be that surprising to see widdle Dzhokhar following a similar path as far as publicity like this goes.

Edit: Crap, Livewire beat me to the Manson bit :(
 

Shizzable

The Derpiest One Of All
216
Posts
10
Years
My problem with the cover is that they're essentially glorifying this monster of a man. The caption reads "How a Popular, Promising Student Was Failed by His Family, Fell Into Radical Islam and Became a Monster." It sounds like they're making out this guy as some sort of celebrity. Hate to tell you guys, but that's just what he wanted when he did this whole "Boston Bombing" thing. Am I offended by it? No. But was it wrong? Yes.
 

twocows

The not-so-black cat of ill omen
4,307
Posts
15
Years
Really? Really?

The story is of interest to people. How did this happen? What could have led someone to make these kind of choices, especially when their life seemed pretty normal to begin with? They're asking legitimate questions. There's nothing wrong with that.

I'm guess I'm sorry if people don't like the picture or the caption; maybe next time TIME should draw some horns on him and a pointed tail and caption it "evil mcevilpants: evil, or pure evil?" Because, you know, people didn't get that from the whole bombing thing.
 

Corvus of the Black Night

Wild Duck Pokémon
3,416
Posts
15
Years
I think the point is that someone so despicable could be hidden among all of us without us knowing, which is actually true. The picture isn't particularly glamorous and it's not like they're saying "DUDE THIS GUY IS AWESOME". He just looks like a normal person and that's kind of the point.

If you wanna see glamorization of this guy then look no further than this article.
 

Corvus of the Black Night

Wild Duck Pokémon
3,416
Posts
15
Years
Why is one nutter who blew up a few people on the cover of Rollinng Stones magazine? Radical Islams carry out attacks like his every day in Afghanistan and Iraq...

I don't see Tsarnaev as a very important world political, social or religious figure, terrorism at home may be more important to you Americans but for me there isn't much significance between a bombing on Boston or Baghdad. I can understand why you might have Osama Bin Laden on a cover since his atrocity was much greater in scale and meaning, shaped U.S (and world) policies, views and caused wars but to have an insignifact radical on the front seems to glorify him, even if the article isn't that at all but to have him on the cover means he's getting attention and coverage he doesn't deserve, in my opinion.
Again, I think the idea is that this man managed to infiltrate into the United States, come off as a respectable member of society for years, and then just go off and injure 100+ people in a bombing. It doesn't even have anything to do with Muslim extremists, if you think about it - it could be anyone. That's pretty scary, and to me, makes him worthy of a cover.
 

Silais

That useless reptile
297
Posts
10
Years
  • Seen Jul 17, 2016
While the magazine did seem to glorify the Boston Bomber by the way they had the picture set up, I'm pretty sure only someone insane would try to glorify the young man. I'm sure it was just a way for the magazine to receive more readers by using something out-there and thought-provoking.
 
14,092
Posts
14
Years
Again, I think the idea is that this man managed to infiltrate into the United States, come off as a respectable member of society for years, and then just go off and injure 100+ people in a bombing. It doesn't even have anything to do with Muslim extremists, if you think about it - it could be anyone. That's pretty scary, and to me, makes him worthy of a cover.

He's not a Muslim sleeper agent, if that's what your getting at. They were just another family before getting swept up and radicalized by the older brother and a friend, If I recall.
 
Back
Top