| |
Celeb News: Slate: RS Boston Bomber Cover Is Brilliant
Member Since: 7/9/2010
Posts: 28,061
|
Slate: RS Boston Bomber Cover Is Brilliant
This is actually a good read. Do not read any further if you are are easily outraged by the intellectual information that is presented in the article.
Quote:
Rolling Stone has unveiled its next cover, featuring a dreamy photo of Boston bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, and many people have erupted in outrage. Some critics say the image depicts Tsarnaev as a kind of celebrity; others believe it turns him into a martyr. Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick called the cover “out of taste,” while CVS has banned the issue “out of respect for the victims of the attack and their loved ones.” A smaller chain of New England stores is also boycotting the magazine for “glorify[ing] evil actions.” Never mind that the picture itself once appeared on the front page of the New York Times; when Rolling Stone uses it, they’re “tasteless,” “trashy,” and “exploitative.”
As the Washington Post’s Erik Wemple points out, the image is exploitative—but it isn’t just exploitative: It’s also smart, unnerving journalism. By depicting a terrorist as sweet and handsome rather than ugly and terrifying, Rolling Stone has subverted our expectations and hinted at a larger truth. The cover presents a stark contrast with our usual image of terrorists. It asks, “What did we expect to see in Tsarnaev? What did we hope to see?” The answer, most likely, is a monster, a brutish dolt with outward manifestations of evil. What we get instead, however, is the most alarming sight of all: a boy who looks like someone we might know.
Few people complained, however, when the Columbine shooters graced the cover of Time, perhaps in part because that magazine is devoted primarily to news, whereas Rolling Stone devotes more space to music and culture. And it’s certainly true that Rolling Stone’s cover is prime celebrity real estate; many forget that the late Michael Hastings’ explosive piece on General Stanley McChrystal was tucked in an issue featuring Lady Gaga on the cover.
But Rolling Stone has published several other terrific works of journalism, and its editors have stood by their cover. And they are right to do so. They are not “glorifying” anyone. Whatever “glory” this cover brings is more in line with infamy than celebrity; after all, the text of the cover describes him as “the bomber” and “a monster.” Yes, the editors were surely aware that Tsarnaev has attracted a bizarre fan base of young women professing their crushes and asserting his innocence. But it’s ridiculous to assume that the magazine was playing off his strange cult following—an assumption we would never make for Time or the New York Times.
We may want the media to reconfirm for us that psychopaths are crazed, nutty, creepy recluses whom we can easily identify and thus avoid. But, as this cover reminds us, that simply isn’t the case. Some psychopaths point guns at cameras; others snap selfies in T-shirts. As Tsarnaev’s many friends could attest, we aren’t as good as we’d like to believe at spotting the evil beneath the surface.
|
A beautifully written article. I agree with a lot of the key points. Especially the part where they negate anyone who said that the cover was somehow glorifying Jahar/his actions.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 7/9/2010
Posts: 42,506
|
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/15/2013
Posts: 25,228
|
It's the truth though. America just doesn't want to accept the fact that terrorists aren't old arab men with long beards, who hide in caves over in the middle east.
A terrorist can be of any color, any religion, any age, any background, etc. If it doesn't fit the stereotype, they want nothing to do with it.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/12/2008
Posts: 11,333
|
True tea tbh. I don't know how can anyone say that RS is glorifiying him. 
Quote:
|
By depicting a terrorist as sweet and handsome rather than ugly and terrifying, Rolling Stone has subverted our expectations and hinted at a larger truth.
|
That's a good one.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 7/16/2010
Posts: 43,593
|
The only thing I hate about this whole issue is the cover. I don't think that guy deserves to get that much attention. I mean it's good they want to put light on the issue. But giving him a cover on a magazine that mainly features big stars, is a bit odd and non fitting imo.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/23/2012
Posts: 9,618
|
I agree with them. I took it as you never know who could be a terrorist these days.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 10/17/2009
Posts: 5,464
|
I completely agree with this.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/11/2009
Posts: 4,457
|
I don't think most of you get it. If this was TIME or any other NEWS magazine, it would be okay. But it's ROLLING STONE we're talking about here. It's a POP CULTURE magazine, not the f**king Washington Post. Yes, Charles Mason, was on a RS cover, but he WAS a pop culture icon. There is a big difference. This man is just a criminal. Why is he on the cover of a pop culture magazine? It's ridiculous and wrong. Most of you saying that RS is trying to inform the public that a terrorist can look "normal". Do you honestly believe that is what they were trying to do? NO. They just did this for shock value. The people trying to defend RS are creating arguments for the magazine that not even RS themselves thought about when deciding to make this the cover.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/28/2011
Posts: 10,662
|
I agreed with RS from the beginning.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/15/2013
Posts: 32,106
|
I liked them spilling the tea, hope I can read the article about him on the spanish version
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/27/2010
Posts: 37,025
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Walley
I don't think most of you get it. If this was TIME or any other NEWS magazine, it would be okay. But it's ROLLING STONE we're talking about here. It's a POP CULTURE magazine, not the f**king Washington Post. Yes, Charles Mason, was on a RS cover, but he WAS a pop culture icon. There is a big difference. This man is just a criminal. Why is he on the cover of a pop culture magazine? It's ridiculous and wrong. Most of you saying that RS is trying to inform the public that a terrorist can look "normal". Do you honestly believe that is what they were trying to do? NO. They just did this for shock value. The people trying to defend RS are creating arguments for the magazine that not even RS themselves thought about when deciding to make this the cover.
|
Several politicians have been on the cover of Rolling Stone.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 9/22/2011
Posts: 9,178
|
I understand almost get behind that justification (mostly because I'm over America assuming every brown person is a potential mass-killer), but the fact of the matter is, this kid is responsible for an act of terror resulting in many innocent deaths, and the fact he's on the cover of what is essentially an (occasionally topical) pop culture/entertainment magazine reeks of sensationalist, exploitative shock imagery masquerading as journalism, that does less about "subverting our racist American ideas of all terrorists being dark-skin, bearded men in turbans" and more for aggrandizing this murderer and his image.
The other side of this also is, if this guy looked like what we consider to be a "traditional terrorist," he wouldn't even be on the bloody cover of Rolling-****ing Stone.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 9/20/2011
Posts: 3,218
|
Well Slate said it, so it must be true.
Y'all think you are being so smart and edgy supporting this cover, when all it is is a cheap shock tactic employed in the dying breath of the soon-to-be defunct print media.
I must say it is hilarious to see you all trying to justify it through your quasi-academic ramblings of 'breaking traditional notions of a terrorist'.
But hey, nice to see that their PR intern managed to suck you all in.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/11/2009
Posts: 4,457
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Arking
I understand almost get behind that justification (mostly because I'm over America assuming every brown person is a potential mass-killer), but the fact of the matter is, this kid is responsible for an act of terror resulting in many innocent deaths, and the fact he's on the cover of what is essentially an (occasionally topical) pop culture/entertainment magazine reeks of sensationalist, exploitative shock imagery masquerading as journalism, that does less about "subverting our racist American ideas of all terrorists being dark-skin, bearded men in turbans" and more for aggrandizing this murderer and his image.
The other side of this also is, if this guy looked like what we consider to be a "traditional terrorist," he wouldn't even be on the bloody cover of Rolling-****ing Stone.
|
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/10/2011
Posts: 4,200
|
LMAO, did the Rolling Stone just say **** to the USA with this cover? Go Rolling Stone!!
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/20/2011
Posts: 959
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Mike91
It's the truth though. America just doesn't want to accept the fact that terrorists aren't old arab men with long beards, who hide in caves over in the middle east.
A terrorist can be of any color, any religion, any age, any background, etc. If it doesn't fit the stereotype, they want nothing to do with it.
|
But terrorists are usually Muslim, not all, but I would say most
Jahar might not be an "old Arab man with a beard" but he is a Muslim, and so is his brother and the rest of his family
Don't be so blind. Do you really think that they just decided to build a bomb and kill people for fun? They were radical Islamists and their killings are justified in the Koran
As an American, I do not wanna see a terrorist, let alone a radical Islamic terrorist on the front page of the biggest publication in music news. I'm glad people are standing up to those idiots @ RS. This generation is losing
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/15/2010
Posts: 14,318
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Miss Frizzle
their killings are justified in the Koran
|
Not really. They sure do think so though.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 7/9/2010
Posts: 28,061
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Miss Frizzle
But terrorists are usually Muslim, not all, but I would say most
Jahar might not be an "old Arab man with a beard" but he is a Muslim, and so is his brother and the rest of his family
Don't be so blind. Do you really think that they just decided to build a bomb and kill people for fun? They were radical Islamists and their killings are justified in the Koran
As an American, I do not wanna see a terrorist, let alone a radical Islamic terrorist on the front page of the biggest publication in music news. I'm glad people are standing up to those idiots @ RS. This generation is losing
|
Oh, you have studied the Koran?
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/3/2011
Posts: 7,281
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Miss Frizzle
But terrorists are usually Muslim, not all, but I would say most
Jahar might not be an "old Arab man with a beard" but he is a Muslim, and so is his brother and the rest of his family
Don't be so blind. Do you really think that they just decided to build a bomb and kill people for fun? They were radical Islamists and their killings are justified in the Koran
As an American, I do not wanna see a terrorist, let alone a radical Islamic terrorist on the front page of the biggest publication in music news. I'm glad people are standing up to those idiots @ RS. This generation is losing
|
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/22/2011
Posts: 1,935
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Miss Frizzle
But terrorists are usually Muslim, not all, but I would say most
Jahar might not be an "old Arab man with a beard" but he is a Muslim, and so is his brother and the rest of his family
Don't be so blind. Do you really think that they just decided to build a bomb and kill people for fun? They were radical Islamists and their killings are justified in the Koran
As an American, I do not wanna see a terrorist, let alone a radical Islamic terrorist on the front page of the biggest publication in music news. I'm glad people are standing up to those idiots @ RS. This generation is losing
|
the statistics say otherwise
Quote:
|
Non-Muslims Carried Out More than 90% of All Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Soil between 1980 and 2005
|
and what is the difference between a radical islamic terrorist and a terrorist? they're both ****ing terrorists!
it sounds like you don't like arabs
|
|
|
|
|
|
