Get PJ Media on your Apple

Should Rolling Stone Have Put Boston Bomber on its Cover?

Glamorizing a terrorist? Your turn to weigh in.

by
The Editors

Bio

July 17, 2013 - 10:31 am

Rolling Stone, no stranger to controversy, usually features rock stars, super models, and other celebrities on its cover.

But the August 3 edition of the music magazine features a self-portrait of Boston bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, which generated immediate outrage on social media and caused several pundits to weigh in angrily. Many believed that the magazine was glamorizing the terrorist.

1-3

Two brothers who both lost legs in the bomb blast, J.P. and Paul Norden, had a few choice words for Rolling Stone:

Instead, your irresponsible behavior did more to tear open wounds and insult victims, survivors and families that have been slowly healing and accepting the horrendous acts of terrorism. There is a very long road that awaits the involved victims and your magazine ripped at the hearts in an instance and cut at the deepest levels and for what, “To increase sales of a magazine that usually is worthy of music celebrities.” Well, Rolling Stones, you just reclaimed your 15 minutes of fame, we only hope, it lasts only fifteen minutes.

We’ve heard from the families. We’ve heard from the pundits. Now it’s your turn. Leave a comment below telling us whether you think Rolling Stone should have featured a terrorist on its cover. If you’re not registered to comment, please take a few seconds to do so.

Comments are closed.

All Comments   (33)
All Comments   (33)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
Disgusting... I can't believe they would stoop so low. People aspire to be on the cover of the rolling stone magazine...there is even a song about it. This guy gets his 15 minutes of fame?? What about putting the people who got limbs blown off on the cover? They are way more worthy than putting a nice picture of an awful person on there. I will NEVER even think of buying or supporting Anything rolling stone magazine has to do with. Everyone that had something to do with this should be ashamed of yourselves!
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
One face gets the romance, another face gets the pixel:

http://barnhardt.biz/blogimages/s_b08_53227478.jpg
(warning_graphic)
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Rolling Stone can put whomever's picture they want on their cover, if it offends you do not buy it. There are some of us that have been offended by this trash magazine and never buy it, if more did that, it just might change it's ways. The people that buy this thing only encourages them to publish more trash.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"Rolling Stone" is adolescent-minded trash, written and published by and for aging adolescents.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
An angle that has not been mentioned yet. Rolling Stone, obviously, started as part of the Leftist, anti-American, counter culture, although that culture now is in charge of the country.

Now that they and their savior are in charge, what is there to report on? They can't talk about the economy, because too many of their readers are unemployed. They can't talk up Obamacare, because it is now publicly resembling a football bat and the prospect of their readers being fined by the government is very real. They can't talk about the numerous scandals surrounding the regime, well because besides it being an "own goal" it could lead to unwelcome attention from the IRS, NSA, and Homeland Security.

So they glamorize a Muslim terrorist to take the sting out of the realization that Obama was lying about making us safer. Given their readership, this method makes sense.

The only question is did they come up with this themselves, or were they 'guided'? Rolling Stone was not part of the 179 members revealed as part of the original Journo-List run by the White House political operation; but the membership of the re-formed "Journo-List 2.0" has not been nailed down, and some of the original list may now work for the Rolling Stone.

Don't waste time worrying about the morality of it. It comes from the Left. That is all we need to know.

Subotai Bahadur
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I haven't done any 'search' on the various names & events, but off the top of my head, Matt Taibbi moved to RStone from a Moscow media job, and almost miraculously became the coast-to-coast national youth superstar of blaming the financial crisis so comprehensively --and rhetorically blindingly --on Wall Street that one would think he'd never even heard of DC or a 'DC Democrat' party.

"Where is the top of the ladder? Where is the top of WHAT ladder?"

===

--and a note on the Boston bombing, National Security Advisor Tom Donilon happened to be in Moscow meeting with Putin. Not hard to imagine either of them wanting to demonstrate what he can do, as a ploy in whatever the two of them were divvying up.

Tangentially, PJM has a new article up on the Samantha Power hearing --haven't read it yet but did see a clip on TV, and was struck by how similar her facial expressions are to Eric Holder's when either are shooting their brassiest bird fingers at the committees trying to question them. Kind of an almost vaudevillian mock-seriousness, meant to be deniable to the squares and undeniable to the hips.

What hooks Power and Donilon together is they both 'made their bones' via their twin vital roles in the Balkan War --she 'outside' reporting what Clinton needed 'reporting', he 'inside' crafting NATO expansion plans certain to parlay the war into electoral victory for the nationalist candidate, Vlad Putin.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
As to Rolling Stone magazine, my suspicions are now confirmed ... it even has no value as a bird cage bottom liner, or a packaging material in which to house the remains of a recently cleaned fish. Just one more bankrupt denizen of the Lame Stream Media. Sad .... very sad, but not unexpected.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
So Rolling Stone would have us believe they are featuring a story that delves into why a young man becomes a murdering criminal? Pshaw. It is nothing but exploitation of death and injury of victims to glamorize this cowardly jerk. The pin-up phoyo also reflects RS's attitude toward its readers: gullible fools who believe any garbage if in a pretty package.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Here's the deal, the media understands what 'face time' means to thugs, criminals and terrorists. Therefore, by placing this vile monster on its cover they have become de facto accomplices.

Placing him, front and center, is akin to giving millions of dollars of free publicity to Al Qaeda/Brotherhood Mafia coffers, regardless of what the actual article is even about. It is that intrinsic.

No one should dare posit that this is what journalism is about. They know better - http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/12/30/u-s-leftist-media-in-the-service-of-a-radical-revolutionary-obama-administration-what-can-go-wrongcommentary-by-adina-kutnicki/

The above duly explains the abysmal state of affairs of western journalism - malfeasance at its highest order!

Adina Kutnicki, Israel http://adinakutnicki.com/about/
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
No, but look at all the free publicity they are getting.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Dr. Hook could not be reached for comment.

Gonna buy 5 copies for my jihadi mother.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
For those of you too young to get my reference......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVMhZN-9V7c


1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 Next View All

One Trackback to “Should Rolling Stone Have Put Boston Bomber on its Cover?”