Much of the anger has been focused on the fact that Tsarnaev looks TOO attractive on the cover, and some have compared his cover to the one done for Jim Morrison of "The Doors."
After all this is a magazine that once had THIS image on its cover.
After all the idea is to attract interest and if this kerfuffle is any indication they have certainly done that.
Here is is a taste of what the actual article reveals:
• As Jahar lay in the boat, surrounded by SWAT teams and police, FBI negotiators mentioned a public plea for his surrender from his former wrestling coach. An agent on the scene later told the coach that it could have been this name from the past – and the memory of that past – both of which were invoked during the standoff, that convinced Jahar to ultimately give up.
• Around 2008, Jahar’s older brother Tamerlan confided to his mother that he felt like "two people" were inside him. She confided this to a close friend who felt he might need a psychiatrist, but Zubeidat believed that religion would be the cure for her son’s inner demons and growing mental instability, and pushed him deeper into Islam.
• Jahar never spoke about 9/11. Once, though, he let slip to a high school friend that he thought the terrorist attacks could be justified, and pointed to US policies towards Muslim countries and US drone strikes and other attacks as his rationale.
As a parent who was shocked to learn that my daughter not only believed that Jahar Tsarnaev had died along with this brother back in April, but who also believed that there was a government conspiracy involved, I am interested in getting more facts to help me understand exactly what did happen and how the United States can keep it from happening again.
(And yes I recognize that part of keeping that from happening again might be exactly the type of program the details of which are currently in Edward Snowden's possession in a Moscow airport.)
So ultimately I think the fuss over the photo is much ado about not very much. If the point was to attract attention and readers, Rolling Stone did just that. If the point was to turn Tsarnaev into a terrorist version of a rock god I think that is only something we could determine after reading the article. But I somehow doubt it.
Well, being from Boston, I can tell you that people around here are pretty upset with RS over this. It's still a bit raw - many of the victims aren't even out of the hospital yet. Foe myself, I can see both sides of it and I always feel that if you're outraged over something like this, the worst thing you can do is talk about it because then you give them the free publicity that they're looking for.
ReplyDeleteon another note: I thought you'd get a kick out of this story! haha http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/07/16/conservative-christian-group-mailed-vibrator-to-michele-bachmann-report/
Fox is of course outraged over the use of the picture, conveniently forgetting that they used it themselves way back in April.
ReplyDeleteI hope their next cover is of Trayvon.
DeleteGiving him even a hint of celebrity status is not playing well in the Boston area. One can only imagine his reaction were he to see the cover. He showed no sign of shame or remorse at his recent arraignment, actually was yawning. So I would expect him to think "whoa, cool, I'm on the cover of Rolling Stone man..." Yeah, wicked cool you murderer! And Rolling Stone wanting to examine the "complexities" of this issue?? Bullshit. There's nothing complex - he put a bomb down near an innocent 8 year old who is dead, his mother injured, his sister lost a leg, and on and on.
ReplyDeleteAll that said, I don't agree with the decision by CVS and others to not sell this issue. As unpleasant as the cover may be to some, I don't see a First Amendment violation here. Bottom line is that RS knew this was controversial and would sell magazines. Journalism yes, but yellow journalism.
There's nothing complex - he [did X with consequences Y].
DeleteYou seem to be asserting that there's nothing complex about how he came to do that. That the reasons are simple—it's what anybody else in his circumstances would have done.
I suggest that the reasons are only "nothing complex" if you have put him in some pigeonhole, and believe that his actions are simply what anybody else in that pigeonhole would be expected to do, because that's what "those people" are like.
Can you articulate how Tsarnaev's transition from how he was before, to how he was in April, was "nothing complex"—other than by bald assertion?
Ted: I think the point is that when a criminal commits a crime, at the core is the fact that the crime was committed. Here, it was a horrendous crime. At that level, there's nothing complex. It is what it is. One can ponder the events leading up to the crime for years, but it won't change the fact that he planted a bomb and killed people.
DeleteTed: I think the point is …
DeleteWhat do you mean by *the* point? You point? Pat in MA's point?
The subject of Gryphen's article, as I understood it, was the outrage over Rolling Stone publishing an attention-getting article, which explored how Tsarnaev got from being a happy kid to where he was in April. I took Pat in MA's comment as an intended response to the article, in which he stated that the issue was bullshit. The question with which I ended my comment has not been answered by him. So far, you have pointed to one small—albeit tragic— part of his trajectory and said, "There! That part is simple!"
How is a full understanding of that one small part—which I'll grant you—going to keep it from happening again?
A retail store has no obligation under the First Amendment to sell a product that they choose not to sell, for WHATEVER reason!! Free market, you know...
DeleteThat photo was everywhere on every news show and newspaper after the event. I fail to see the difference in using it now. One more thing to get "outraged" about.
ReplyDeleteHe's responsible for death and suffering of Americans -private citizens. I think outrage is quite justified. I think he's a sociopath and a terrorist.
ReplyDeleteI think he's a sociopath and a terrorist.
DeleteAnd therefore we should not have an attention-getting article exploring how he got that way? Should we just conclude it was part of God's Plan™ and not think about it any more?
The more we know about how he got that way, the more we may be able to prevent that happening to another young person or stop the end results.
DeleteHaving more information is better than having less.
Regardless of Tsarnaev's transition or who interesting and informative it may be to read the front cover is incredibly hurtful to the greater Boston community who lived through this nightmare. I walked into work every day through the throngs of press camped out in front of my hospital. I heard the disgusting stories of 'reporters' offering thousands of dollars to staff members for a picture of Tsarnaev in his hospital bed. It was a circus and it was disgusting. Especially considering the number of injured being treated in the same facility. Try to imagine the effects on staff who had an obligation to treat this individual. RS did not need to put this on the front page if they needed to report at all.
ReplyDeleteThe complete Rolling Stone article begins at http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/jahars-world-20130717 (it's five pages).
ReplyDeleteSeveral people have expressed the opinion that the story is not important. Putting our heads in the sand will not prevent another bombing. Studying what led up to this one may suggest preventive measures, warning signs, etc.
If you wish to say that Janet Reitman's article is not constructive, fine. But wouldn't it be appropriate to read it first?
Unsurprised. Conservatives don't react well to having their stereotypes challenged by reality. I know it must be difficult for them to accept that terrorists aren't all ugly brown guys with turbans, matted beards, scars and one glazed-over eye.
ReplyDeleteThough, I'm guessing, not as hard to accept as the idea that maybe good governance doesn't only come from elderly white guys.
Exactly, he looks like a rock start and that pisses them off. He's not wearing a "rag" on his head or waving a gun wildly around shouting Allah Akbar or looking like a but. It pisses them off he could be ANY dark haired teen, even their own sons (see Columbine which had even MORE victims die than Boston).
DeleteWe subscribe so I found the copy in my mailbox. I was horrified, but I have to admit, my initial thought was if he was in his cell singing, "picture on the cover, stone, gonna buy 5 copies for my mother... rolling stone..." Then I went online and saw I was supposed to be pissed. I now think I will be sure to save this issue. Collectors item?
ReplyDeleteI was a subscriber waaay back in the 70s (before it had staples) until I finally canceled in the 90s. The only copy I ever kept was the one above of John & Yoko. I still have it wrapped in plastic stashed somewhere upstairs.
DeleteThe only other one I really wish I would have saved was when Dr. Hook finally "got their picture on the cover of the Rolling Stone." But I may just go out today and buy this one to stash.
So many covers over the years. Some great, some not.
I meant I WASNT horrified.
DeleteTed Powell - You seem familiar with the case. Do you happen to know how it is that Tsarnaev survived the shooting on the boat? The owner said the boat looked like "swiss cheese" and was unusable. I've wondered how one could have survived a hail of bullets like that. And if he was cornered in a boat with no way of escape, why shoot unless to kill him? I've not come across any story that explains any of this. I'd appreciate any answers. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteThe shoot out did not happen at the boat! Where did you get the idea from? The shoot out was a few blocks away. The boat owner did not say anything about swiss cheese, he said that he saw a lot of blood in the boat. This makes sense because while the older brother was killed in the shoot out, the younger one was wounded and ran. He went a few blocks west and found the covered boat in a back yard ... a good place to hide.
DeleteI don't know why these guys did what they did, however, there is another piece of information that might be relevant here.
Shortly after the bombing an article appeared in the NY Daily News or the NY Post about them. (I forget which paper it was, but they are both only slightly better than Fox News.)
The article focused on a double murder that occurred in a town near Cambridge, Mass. a few years ago. Some friends of the Tsarnaev brothers, who were also friends of the murder victims, now realized that the T-brothers might have committed this murder. It appeared to be drug turf (?)related and personal.
Here are some specifics about the shoot out:
Deletehttp://www.getonhand.com/blogs/news/7743337-boston-bombing-suspect-shootout-pictures
No boat--see?
Do you happen to know how it is that Tsarnaev survived the shooting on the boat?
DeleteNope. The simple answer would be that none of the bullets entered the interior of the boat with enough remaining energy to punch through whatever might have been sheltering him. Without seeing the boat, and whatever it contained at the time, one can only speculate.
if he was cornered in a boat with no way of escape, why shoot unless to kill him?
To encourage him to surrender? To keep him too preoccupied to retaliate? Other questions suggest themselves, but I need to go and do other things.
Ted, you are explaining it the exact way as I scoured and watched the news at the time. And I agree about not killing him when he was in the boat. They already knew he was injured, heat seeking helicopters were able to see him lieing down in the boat injured. They wanted him to surrender and scare him to come out by firing shots, it may have been bangers they were shooting off. I've not seen the boat or any damage. Then they brought in the mechanical arm to rip away the boat wrap to expose him and I think that is when he was told to lift his shirt so that they could see whether or not he had a bombs attached to his body.
DeleteI also want to add, they wanted this one alive. They want to be able to get answers as to what went on and if they were part of a terrorist organization. They'll get info out of this little bugger. I'm not sure why there are conspiracy theories going on.
DeleteI got the idea from all the news reports that said the police shot up the boat. Here is one of them-
Deletehttp://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/20/boat-watertown-dzhokhar-tsarnaev-swiss-cheese
Ted Powell-
DeleteDude - didn't mean to tie up your life with a couple of questions. Carry on...
I could see being outraged if it was like "Person of the Year" or something condoning his actions, but it's not.
ReplyDeleteCome on. The story is about people being shocked at how the person they knew as a nice, attractive, sympathetic guy turned out to be a cruel, destructive person. The picture is what he looked like. What should they have done, photoshopped it with fangs and dripping bloog?
ReplyDeleteIt would certainly fit the right wing and now Boston's narrative.
DeleteThe outrage here in MA is about him being on the cover, not the story itself. The cover should have been a picture of the day or the victims or the rescuers, or even of him at his hearing, not a glamorized shot like the one they used. And, yes I know it was also used by news outlets at the time, but it looks very different on the cover of RS. I think it's very disturbing for people who have lost loved ones or limbs, etc. to walk into a store and see a picture like that on the cover of a magazine.
ReplyDeleteThe outrage here in MA is about him being on the cover, not the story itself.
DeleteAs Anita Winecooler has already commented, being on the cover is not necessarily approbation, Dr. Hook notwithstanding. Gryphen provided some examples in the article.
The cover should have been a picture of the day or the victims or the rescuers, or even of him at his hearing …
But those things aren't what the RS article is about. As I commented earlier, it "explored how Tsarnaev got from being a happy kid to where he was in April." Now that I've had the time to finish reading the last page, it seems to me that their exploration hasn't turned up all that much, but that's still what it was about; and the question of how he got from A to B remains a complex one.
The article is about HIM not the victims, many of whom would like to stay anonymous.
DeleteOne way would be for guns and explosives to be kept out of potential terrorists' hands (and the elder brother was on a watch list internatioanlly). Instead the GOP votes it down yet again:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/07/17/house-republicans-rejected-bill-to-ban-gun-sales-to-suspected-terrorists/
The only reason anyone thinks this is "glamorous" is because he's a young, attractive man.
ReplyDeleteSometimes, I think people search for crap to piss them off. I got that magazine in the mail a couple of days ago, glanced at the cover, thought "oh yeah, that's that Boston bomber guy", tossed the magazine on the back of the sofa, and it's been sitting there ever since.
ReplyDeleteI didn't realize I was supposed to have a hissy-fit over it.
My bad.
My God some of you people are rude and insensitive.
ReplyDeleteAh, the right wing's "outrage of the week."
ReplyDeleteAs I see it, the flap about this is only because he's good-looking. Is every good looking young man who's done something bad and ends up on a magazine cover going to cause this kind of thing from now on? Are all the bad guys supposed to be look ugly and scary, with the look of evil pouring out of their eyes?
How stupid.... Behavior has nothing to do with looks. There aren't a huge lot of images of this guy to begin with, and the magazine obviously chose one to grab attention. So what?
Rolling Stone should've used the picture that Officer Murphy took, especially the ones with the laser sighted on his the Joker's forehead. Scumbag American-Hater.
ReplyDelete