 |
| Fair Use: AP Photo/Wenner Media |
Occasionally on the blog this semester we will consider real life situations that raise interesting questions concerning journalism, the First Amendment, ethics, etc.
This week I would like you to examine the controversy surrounding a recent Rolling Stone magazine cover that some people felt glamorized one of the Boston bombing suspects. (The magazine typically features rock stars or political leaders on its cover.)
Read the entire article and then share any thoughts you might have. What do you think of the Rolling Stone cover?
After reading the article, and hearing the magazine's defense of the cover, I think I can see where the Rolling Stone was coming from, and how it was trying to shed light on another angle of the Boston terrorist story, but I don't think they handled it the right way. Instead of talking about the victims, and who they were, and then mention the background of the killers, they make it seem as though the terrorists are the victims. They mention nothing about the lives of those killed and injured, and seem to glorify Tsarnaev by putting his picture on the magazine cover. The Boston Marathon bombing is still an extremely touchy and upsetting issue, and putting one of the terrorist's face on the cover and telling his story, could be viewed by some people as similar to putting the face of one of the 9/11 terrorists on the cover of a magazine and giving their life story and how they became what they were. I see how the magazine wanted to tell the story of the bombers, but I don't think the way the did it and when they did it was right.
ReplyDeleteI remember in August seeing this Rolling Stone cover on the news and hearing the comments people made about it. I think Rolling Stone isn't harming anyone with the article, it's just the picture they used on the cover. I don't think the picture was very appropriate, because the effects and lighting used make him look like a rockstar or some celebrity. If they had used a different picture, then people might not have been so angry.
ReplyDeleteI understand the controversy over the cover, but I don't really see anything wrong with it. Just because it is percieved that being on the front of a magazine is glamourous doesn't nessasarily mean that it is. They put it there because they wanted to reach out to the public about how he was a normal person that went on a downward spiral and that it can happen to anyone. It isn't there out of disrespect and they felt that the message this article was meant to send was one of awareness that things like this can happen.
ReplyDeleteThe cover of Rolling Stone featuring Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is definitely a touchy issue. I understand that Rolling Stone probably wanted to take a new, and possibly edgy side of the story, but it may have been too much too soon. Having a story (especially a cover story) on the life of the bombing suspect in a pop culture magazine makes it seem like the magazine is victimizing him, particularly to those affected by the horrendous act he helped cause. Having Tsarnaev's picture on the cover as if he were a celebrity is bound to get people's attention, but probably not in the way that the magazine hoped. The fact that the magazine was giving this much attention to him and not the victims was sure to upset a lot of people. Just a few weeks after the bombing, people are not going to want to read about this man's life, but rather, if anything at all, about whether or not he will be held responsible for his crimes. Yes, sometimes a controversial story can increase sales, but as Rolling Stone learned, it can also hurt. Personally, I think the story was in bad taste and just added salt to the wounds of many people.
ReplyDeleteI do understand where Rolling Stone was coming from and why they decided to put Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's face as their cover. Firstly, "How a popular, promising student was failed by his family, fell into radical Islam and became a monster." People usually don't know the killer's side of the story, it was an interesting and bold angle to take. Secondly, their young readers would be interested to read an article like this, because of the age similarities. However, it was executed very poorly, the bombing was still fresh in people's minds and they made Tsarnaev, the boy who killed and harmed so many people in Boston, out to be a victim. Also, the picture that they used on the cover was very light, happy, and "rock star-ish" it wasn't how people wanted to see Tsarnaev. I feel that the magazine didn't mean any disrespect, that they only wanted to bring this information to light.
ReplyDeleteI think the way Rolling Stone handled this situation was wrong and unthoughtful. Many citizens were injured and killed in the Boston Marathon, and for the killer to be put on the cover in a glamorous way was anything but right. To put a terrorist on a cover of a magazine that usually features celebrities was out of line. Not only did Rolling Stone put a terrorist on the cover, they glamorized the celebrity. They made him look like a celebrity. This was completely disrespectful to the lives lost in the marathon. Instead of the attention going to the lives hurt in the Boston Marathon bombing, the attention is going towards the terrorist, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. This cover basically showed that if someone is a terrorist they will become a celebrity which is completely appalling. Rolling Stone should have handled the situation better and put a picture of the marathon or victims of the marathon.
ReplyDeleteI don't think there was any thing wrong with Rolling Stone writing an article about the Boston Marathon Bombing and I understand why they might have used this picture, particularly to interest people into picking up the magazine and reading it but I think The Rolling Stone could have used a different picture as the Boston Bombing is still a touchy subject for many people, but I don't think The Rolling Stone was trying to glamorize Dzhokhar Tsarnaev in any way but rather educate people of the tragedy.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Zaynah. Rolling Stone putting this man's face on the cover was not meant to offend people. I feel that it is another way to present the story. The majority of other magazines that covered this story used the victims as their main point. But Rolling Stone took a different approach. I can see where many thought that this approach was offensive, but Rolling Stone most likely did not mean to offend people. They were just taking the situation and presenting it from a different point of view.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I don't see anything wrong with the "Rolling Stones" cover. I think that it is being taken so harshly because, Americans are very sensitive to bombing situations. I agree with "Rolling Stones" because, they were only trying to depict what happened to Tsarnaev that made him to to evil. In response to all of the critics, if they don't like the magazine cover or story they can choose not to read it. In fact, that is what many of them did, creating a Facebook page boycotting the magazine. I have never read a "Rolling Stones" magazine but from this CBS News article, I don't see an error with the "Rolling Stones" story. A suggestion I would have for the magazine is that they do another cover story about some survivors of the Boston Bombing. This way we will see both points of view and not be ignorant to the tragedy or the reason for the tragedy.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the Rolling Stone's idea for the article about the personal life and tragedy of the bomber who turned into a monster was a good one. I would certainly read it. However, the way they went about printing it wasn't appropriate. First of all, I think that if Rolling Stones was going to write an article specifically about the bomber they should've waited longer to print it because the Boston Marathon incident is still close to America's heart. Secondly, having his picture on the front of the magazine with computer effects making him look celebrity-like, attractive and even a bit innocent looking can be taken as offensive. I don't think it would be wrong to have him on the cover, but I don't agree with the special effects that were used on his picture. Despite all of this, I think that Rolling Stones magazine was brave for publishing this article and if it were released at a later date, maybe more Americans would value this bravery and want to read the article.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, I do not think that featuring the Boston Marathon bomber on the Rolling Stones cover was a particularly bad decision. The magazine was not glamorizing or idolizing him in any way at all, they were just addressing a controversial topic that many people were interested in. The great majority of people already think the bombers were terrible people, and seeing one of their faces on a magazine cover will not change their negative opinions on him to positive ones. Although it was a bold move to feature the bomber on their cover, Rolling Stone was not doing anything wrong and I personally do not think any damage was done by doing it.
ReplyDeleteI can definitely see why some people may be offended by this cover. The Boston Marathon bombing is a very touchy and emotional subject for people. However, I personally think the cover story would be very interesting to read. The cover story is not glamorizing what the bomber did. It's just a story that shows how you can ruin your life if you make bad decisions. The only thing I do not like about the Rolling Stone's article is the picture on the cover. Someone above mentioned that the edit on the photo and the photo itself makes the bomber look like a rockstar and I agree with that. However, I do not think the actual story covered in this magazine is offensive.
ReplyDeleteLike many of the other Rolling Stone readers, I was also upset about the cover photo. I felt that it made a horrible event seem unimportant and almost comical. In my opinion they should have used a picture with more impact and meaning than a glamorized shot of one of the bombers. I was not shocked by the negative response that the magazine received. Although I believe the picture they chose was a bad decision, I would still read the article.
ReplyDeleteI personally do not mind the controversial Rolling Stone cover. I think that it shows a perspective into another side of the Boston Marathon bombings, although not a very pleasant one. Although I can completely understand where the people who are upset are coming from. It is also true that the person on the cover did horrible, terrible crimes, and negatively affected so many people's lives. But he is also a person and I think that his story should be told.
ReplyDeleteI understand where Rolling Stone is coming from and don't view the cover as a bad decision. The cover was intended to attract readers and explain how a young man, with a bright future, was brainwashed into violence. I think the cover was an interesting and different approach to cover the tragedy. Even though I don't mind the cover, I understand how readers could be offended. Since the covers of Rolling Stone are mainly celebrities and politicians, people thought Rolling Stone was giving Dzhokhar Tsarnaev a rockstar status.
ReplyDeleteI realize what Rolling Stone is trying to say here. I agree that the cover of a magazine does not have to be as glamorous as it usually is. Although, I think putting the bomber on the front page was a bad idea. In some ways, it seems as though Rolling Stone is trying to defend him. I think that the people who do terrible things do not deserve to get the publicity they receive. They want the attention and we give it to them. By Rolling Stone putting this man on their cover, they are tainting the dignity of their cover page, their magazine, and the judgement they have had up until now. I know that Rolling Stone covers are not always the most approproate but I think putting a bomber on their front page is giving way too much attention to a man who deserves nothing. I think a better cover would a victim or victims of the bombing. I would much rather hear a tragic but fulfilling story of a survivior who experienced this first hand rather than read about how we should 'cut the bomber slack' because of his upbringing. The bomber wins by getting his face on the front page. His face sits where many famous and respected people's faces have been. It is sickening to think that he is getting the same attention as someone like Taylor Swift. They may be on the cover for different reasons but it only has one major result-- a cover spread of Rolling Stone.
ReplyDeleteI personally do not think there is anything wrong with the Rolling Stone's magazine cover. Although the Boston Marathon was a tragic event, the thought process to make this the cover of the magazine was not meant to offend anybody. I believe that it was just another way to interpret the story from different perspectives, including those of the friends of the two bombers. The Rolling Stone magazine was trying to create a good story of the Boston Bombing and in the process came up with an intriguing front cover page. I think that it was a smart way to attract the interest of their readers and I do not agree that this was meant to be disrespectful at all.
ReplyDeleteI realize what the Rolling Stone's Magazine is trying to say, but I think that they are going at the wrong angle in the whole situation. This bombing in Boston was an extremely tragic and devastating event and to get the background story of the person who caused it isn't the best idea, because then it seems like they are taking the side of the bomber. People want to hear about those that got injured and they don't even want to look at the person that caused the tragedy. When the viewers saw that the mans face was plastered on the cover, it was seemed insulting because he looked as if he were becoming famous for doing such a tragic and disturbing thing.
ReplyDeleteWhen I first saw the magazine with the alleged bomber, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, on the cover I was shocked. The Boston Marathon bombing is clearly a sensitive topic to not only the people who experienced it, but the rest of the nation. I immediately thought of how insensitive and harsh it seemed to have Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on the cover of such a popular magazine because it seemed to glorify him in a way. However, also on mentioned on the cover is that the article will be about how a promising student who was failed by his family, fell into radical Islam and became a monster. Not very often do you see the bombers story. I find this to be an interesting change and a bold move by the Rolling Stone magazine.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I find this article, and its cover, disgraceful, cruel, and quite frankly, disgusting. They have turned this a atrocious tragedy into some sort of "gossip" tabloid as if it were written about the latest crazy thing Lindsey Lohan did, or something of that nature. While I do recognize, and respect, their first amendment privileges, I strongly believe that this was a situation where salt was poured into the victims, their families, and anyone else who may have been affected, was poured directly into their freshly opened wounds. The lack of sensitivity this article shows is disheartening.
ReplyDelete