Rolling Stone's Dzhokhar cover: Magazine puts Boston bombing suspect on its August cover.
(picture at link)
Reading between the lines of the article, and looking at some of the comments, I think that the implication is that this picture makes Dzokhar Tsarnaev look glamorous or cool (or at the very least, not monstrous) and that is likely to stir up controvery. Thoughts?
Makes me sick
Is James Holmes on the cover next month?
Last edited by GloriaInTX; 07-17-2013 at 12:04 PM.
Mom to Lee, Jake, Brandon, Rocco
Stepmom to Ryan, Regan, Braden, Baley
Granddaughters Kylie 10/18/2010 & Aleya 4/22/2013
I never consider a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosopy, as a cause for withdrawing from a friend. --Thomas Jefferson
Of course it's designed to stir up controversy, that's what sells more magazines. And this cover is going to sell more than yet another cover of Mick Jagger looking haggard with just a couple of lines saying there's a story about Tzarnaev inside. I don't like it, but I understand the logic behind it.
It takes 12 pounds of grain and 2500 gallons of water to produce ONE POUND of beef.
Livestock generates 65% of all human-related nitrous oxide, which is 296 times more warming to the environment than carbon dioxide; 37% of all human-related methane, which 23 times as warming as CO2; and 64 percent of ammonia, which contributes significantly to acid rain.
"If you care about the planet, it's actually better to eat a salad in a Hummer than a cheeseburger in a Prius."
-- Bill Maher
I think the headline is powerful.
I also think (although I don't know for sure) that Rolling Stone's audience is not kids anymore, it's parents, people in my age group (with some room on either side), and that's why that's the angle they're taking.
Obviously they are doing it to sell copies and to get buzz (positive or negative), but the story there is "how does this happen?" and it's a completely valid story, and I always liked their in-depth articles back when I used to read RS regularly, which I haven't in years.
I don't think it makes him look glamorous, although I do think that the minute you put someone on a magazine cover, you are giving them MORE fame, MORE attention, etc. and that I do have issues with.
So I have mixed feelings on it. I think I'd like to read the article, though.
I think it's powerful, and here's why:
Yes, I do think that picture makes him look a little glam. Or anyway, not out of place on a Rolling Stone magazine cover. With his interesting t shirt and his tousled curls, he could be a new hit musician. But he's not, he's this kid that did this horrific thing. I think it's a powerful image to go with a story about "how does this happen?" because he's not at all what you expect when you think of a killer or a terrorist. It kind of makes you rethink your assumptions about what the bad guys are supposed to look like, if that makes any sense.
It reminds me of how it took T forever to wrap his head around the fact that Prince Humperdink is the bad guy in the Princess Bride, because to his 5 year old eyes, Prince Humperdink looks like a handsome prince, not a bad guy.
The headline upsets me more... Family failed him.. fell into radical .. LOL like none of it is his choice or his fault.. typical.
DH-Aug 30th 1997 Josiah - 6/3/02 Isaac 7/31/03