Rolling Stone

it doesn't upset me a bit.
everyone gets all up in arms when TIME does their 'person of the year' and it's a villain, even though 'person of the year' is very clear that they're targeting 'most newsworthy' and not 'most admirable.'
it was actually a genius move by RS. their readership has been slipping. the controversy over this has them front and center again.
and they SHOULD be there because it's really a great mag. the chains boycotting them are playing right into their clever, clever hands.
khairete
S.

Normally I'm not annoyed by this type of thing, but I have to agree. This was inappropriate. Like you said, if it had been a mug shot, or a photo that made him look less handsome, there would probably be a different connotation. But in this photo, he looks inordinately good-looking and yes, like a rock star, and that plus the title "The Bomber" underneath definitely seems to glamorize him.

They are in the business to sell magazines, ever heard the saying "any publicity is good publicity?" I've heard more about Rolling Stone in the last few days than I have in the last year, I'm guessing that's why they put him on the cover.

As a Bostonian born and bred, the cover of RS is a slap...

Many stores around here are not going to carry the issue, which I think is an appropriate response. RS does do a good job with serious journalism, but this cover photo is in poor taste. They're free to print what they want, and we're free to ignore it. I hope this backfires on them with lower sales. It's not exactly a relevant magazine anyway...I haven't read it in 20 years.

ETA 8Kidsdad do you research anything before you write? Sometimes I can't tell if you just make things up out of thin air or are gullible enough to believe everything that your conservative sources tell you. Wal-Mart's CEO is Mike Duke, who is neither a woman nor black. Wal-Mart's website lists 38 corporate executives - 25 white men, one man with a Hispanic last name, 2 black men, 8 white women, one woman with a Hispanic last name, and one black woman. But don't let the facts get in the way of your racism...

I mentioned to Troy last night this is the first time I have thought, good for you, when a store decided not to sell a magazine.

Sorry your sales are in the crapper but this isn't a good way to wake up the world to your existence.

I wish they would have, as the letter from Boston's mayor to Rolling Stone suggested, featured any one of the artists affected by the bombing. Boston is home to many singers, bands, dancers, visual artists - any of whom would love the publicity of being on Rolling Stone's cover. It's sad that instead, they chose to give publicity to a murderer.

They want attention and magazine sales. I think it's a pathetic way to go about that. I rarely complain about magazines...free press and all that...but this was just low.

I have no problem with the article. I have a problem with the kid all Jim Morrison, rock god like, on the cover. Pathetic.

It's all about sales. They claim it's about responsible journalism, but honestly they could have done an article and kept photos inside without ever putting that traitorous murderer on their cover. It's Rolling Stone, not Time, and they should have kept that in mind.

What I don't understand is the insistence of some people to defend the jackhole, or go further and not only defend him but give in and spread and appear to actually believe conspiracy theories regarding the Boston Marathon Bombings as well as Tsarnaev in the aftermath of the bombings. There are actually people out there who believe Tsarnaev is innocent, was set up, was murdered rather than captured, and that the trial process he's going through is a farce for the public benefit. People are truly idiots.

It boggles.

No "s" on Rolling Stone Magazine :)

I do have a problem w/ the cover and I think that this pic would have been more appropriate and showed what he truly is: a terrorist, not some teen idol posing for a dreamy selfie.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/07/18/203399377/...

The cover of Time or even People, but why Rolling Stone? He's not any sort of a pop icon or artist. It created a lot of curiosity, but seems like a really inappropriate way to get publicity

Sadly, this debate is the controversy they intentionally sought by doing that cover. Sadly, somehow it's going to make money for them or they wouldn't have done it. I can only hope people boycott it in the places selling it and even cancel subscription en masse, but somehow it's going to make money. It's the most egregiously blatant glamorizing of a criminal ever. He gets the coveted "I made the cover of Rolling Stone" notch in his belt for killing and wounding people. The magazines response to backlash is laughable. The article could never blunt the impact of the photo. If they weren't trying to be provocative, they'd have the article inside with no picture at all and a MUSICIAN on the cover.

To the poster who makes no sense about Paula Deen - Walmart's CEO is NOT black. Go look it up, for heaven's sake. http://corporate.walmart.com/our-story/leadership/executi...

I don't ever buy the Rolling Stone magazine. I'm certainly not going to buy one now. Time Magazine has "somebody of the year" every year, for good or bad. I think that Rolling Stone is kind of trying to be like that, but it doesn't work. It's Rolling Stone, which is seen in a very different light than Time Magazine. And yes, this picture does make him look like a rock star. Idiotic, unless what they really wanted to do was to cause some controversy to get people to pay attention to the magazine. Sometimes, bad attention is better than no attention, and in this case, it's publicity.

Yes its upsetting. If its not upsetting you, I am going to suggest you are a frog in a pot of water thats getting very very warm, you just don't realize it. I see all around me that we glamorize what is evil. This is really not a new trend. But a trend that is gaining momentum. Coming from the rock and role industry who has almost single handedly transformed our society form fairly moral to almost amoral, with a very strong and recurrent message; do as you please, I'm really not surprised at all. This is only one more step off the cliff of moral relativism and the confusion of right and wrong. And I don't care how the article was written, even if they did draw black and white lines of morality. They glamorized evil. They just did.

Oh Lee Lee, you are so right!! The photo with the sharpshooter's laser on his forehead is much more appropriate!!! I thought the same thing this morning.

I find it sad that our society (media) creates stars by giving so much attention to those who do wrong. It's the media that gives people like him their 15 minutes of fame and it is up to the people to say enough.

I wonder if they were trying to be similar to the regular news outlets that also had him on their front pages.

I am very upset by it. No matter what the article says, the picture alone glorifies a terrorist and that in itself is unfathomable and unforgivable. They are trying to financially benefit from a horrible tragedy and I hope it backfires in a very expensive way. I wrote an email to CVS when I heard they would not put it on their shelves and thanked them for respecting the lives of those injured/killed by him. I was so glad to hear that other companies followed.
I thought it was great that the police officer in Boston released the pictures of the coward after he was found hiding in that boat. Unfortunately, I heard the officer got in trouble for it. :(

RS covers are art.
Art is meant to illicit a response.
To many, that response is fear.
A photo has no "power."
Knowledge is power.
And the basis of all well informed responses and reactions.
I'm not "scared of" or "shocked by" the cover.
This might be the new face of terrorism.
The more knowledge the better.
I think everyone's first thought after the bombing was "Why?" So why not find out why?
I'll definitely read it.

(Sure, Wal Mart IS racist--just not in the way outlined below! Lol)

Apparently the article is about how a kid so much like this mags readers could turn in to a mad bomber. I could see how that could be a good, timely introspective article. The choice was made to put a picture of him that looked like any rock star they have ever put on the cover. I would bet that was a separate decision and one intended to cause controversary.
Art provokes and sells.

It is a shame that he is probably sending copies of it to his family- on the cover of The Rollin Stone...

Ugh.

I actually want to read the article. Rolling Stone has great articles that are very well researched. BUT, I am not going to purchase it. I am either going to go to the local Bookstore and read it (which I have never done before), Or I am going to go to our Library and read it.

I want to know what his deal is. What lead him and his lunatic for a brother do such a thing.

BTW, the Rolling Stone does not always hae Rock Stars on the Covers. If people were actual readers of the Magazine they would already know this.

This demographic is usually young people. Young people in general do not read Time, Newsweek, The New York Times. SO to have some of these serious issues addressed in RS, is a great gateway to getting this group to be interested in news .

I in no way this guy is being glorified. I thin k it is like having a Monster on the cover. But I want to know what lead him to become this monster.

This is one reason crazy people do these types of crimes. It takes an every day loser, nobody and turns them into a celebrity who gets on TV and talked about and in the magazines.

They think they will sell magazines. They have no moral obligation to not perpetrate this type of celebrity seeking.

If people buy the magazine, it will continue, if they don't, then they will stop. In the end, it's about the almighty dollar.

If you support what the Boston Bombers did, then buy the magazine.

If you oppose what the Boston Bombers did, boycott the magazine and complain to the stores that sell the magazine so they won't stock it and will send the copies they have back to the publisher. Take the magazines off the shelf and place them around the store so they won't be available to purchase.

Walmart is boycotting Paula Deen and supporting the rappers that have CDs with racist lyrics and prohibited garbage on them because Walmart's CEO is Black. She will support black enterprise, and seek to destroy white enterprise.

ETA: I saw a black enterprise show where they introduced this black lady and said she was the CEO of Walmart and proceeded to interview her. I really don't care what her title was except they interviewed her and said she was the CEO. What I care about is that Walmart carries racist CDs by black rappers with all kinds of "N" words and other racial slurs and they fired Paula Deen for what she said about three decades ago. The hypocritical Bigots are the leaders at Walmart.

Good luck to you and yours.

I saw it and was disgusted. I can't believe he got the cover. Didn't read the story. Didn't buy the magazine.

Supposedly the story (again haven't read it) "helps people try to understand how he became "the bomber"....

If you don't like something? you DO NOT Have to purchase it. You have the option to contact Rolling Stone and tell them how disgusted your are.

It is disgusting. They have the right to put him on the cover, but I have the right never to support that magazine again and I will be exercising that right.

Didn't he plead NOT GUILTY?

I'm not sure why they put him on the cover (?) but it's premature to condemn him imho. Why isn't the word "alleged" in front of the word "bomber"?

No matter how abhorrent the crime, generally the media goes out of its way to insert "alleged" before someone is convicted. I'm not sure why that's not the case here. It's weird.

The cover *is* in poor taste imho.

Isn't Rolling Stone meant to profile artist or musicians? I thought that was what RS was all about. The bomber falls into neither category.