So, I come into work today and when I get a free few minutes, I see my Facebook feed blown up with people upset with the current cover of Rolling Stone. So, I click on a photo of the cover. It has a selfie of suspected Boston bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev plastered across the front. So, I check the headlines. I am still unsure what is the big deal.
Then. I am told Rolling Stone is "glorifying" Tsarnaev like he is some kind of rock star. So, my next thought was asking the question "When did a cover story turn a bombing suspect into a rock star?" I suppose as a journalist, I look at things differently. The exact same photo on the cover of Rolling Stone ran on the cover of both the New York Times and New York Post several weeks ago. Why was there no outrage in those instances? Granted, both are considered straight up news publications while Rolling Stone is a music magazine, but Rolling Stone has never strayed from covering everything from crime to politics to world issues. President Obama, Lindsay Lohan, Jon Stewart, Johnny Depp, and even Snooki have graced the magazine's cover. None of them have anything to do with music and some of them shouldn't be glorified either.
So, why all the fuss? People have their panties in a twist because of their perception of the cover. My perception is that Rolling Stone is covering a news story. Others perceive it as the magazine revering the bombing suspect. It seems to me that the people most upset over the cover are the ones who don't read the magazine. Look at it any way you want, but Rolling Stone is profiting from all of this. In the 1970's, they put Charles Manson on the cover, so this isn't something new for them or for anyone who knows about Rolling Stone. CVS drug stores have banned the issue. It looks like CVS won't profit from a Rolling Stone issue that will certainly fly off of store shelves.
Another thing I need to point out is that last week, Tsarnaev pled not guilty to 30 federal charges relating to his alleged role in the Boston marathon bombing. In the United States, you are innocent until proven guilty. But the American media and public have already put him in the electric chair. Now, I do believe he did what he is accused of, but like so many people in the spotlight who are accused of heinous crimes, he is already guilty.
Now, keeping in mind the depth of Tsarnaev's crimes, would we be equally appalled if, say, Newton school shooter Adam Lanza were on the cover? My guess would be no. We are an "it's too soon" society and we wouldn't hear a peep of indignation if this exact cover story were published a year from now.
Lately, I have tried to stray from meaningless news stories or ones created to make you go to a website or tune into a certain show. One such example was a news story I saw regarding the death of Glee star Cory Monteith. TMZ posted several photos snapped a few days before his death where he was outside hanging with some friends. There was a 6 pack of beer present, but there wasn't even a single shot of him drinking a beer much less holding one. And the article made it sound like Monteith led a double life where he partied in Vancouver, but stayed sober while doing the show in the United States. It was a stretch for a story, but people buy into that. People actually BELIEVE what even their own eyes are telling them is not true.
So, when people are trained to believe the worst, then they actually do. And that is why I still don't understand the outrage, but I understand why people believe Rolling Stone was glorifying a man, who, according to the United States legal system, is presumed innocent.
