The editors of Rolling Stone are defending themselves following a blaze of negative criticism throughout the United States. The magazine's issue - dated July 17th, 2013 - features a cover photo of the alleged Boston Marathon bomber, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev...looking - as one person described him - "as dreamy as a teen heartthrob superstar." Why would Rolling Stone put such a picture on their cover...of the man that law enforcement officials believe is responsible...for the terrorist attack that killed three people and injured nearly three-hundred others?
To begin with...as a journalist and broadcaster for nearly 40 years...I am against any form of censorship. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution gives the editors of Rolling Stone the right to publish anything they want in their magazine...or on their cover. That being said...I have one question for the "powers that be" of the 46-year old publication. DO YOU NOT HAVE A HEART? You have the right to put a photograph of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on the cover of Rolling Stone...but how dare you do something so cruel and heartless? Are you only interested in making money? And do you really think...that in the long run...you will benefit by adorning an individual who is suspected of being a vicious villain?
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is not a rock celebrity. The photo of Tsarnaev is not a mug shot. The cover looks like any Rolling Stone magazine that would promote the latest teen idol or music megastar. Granted, Tsarnaev is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law...but for Rolling Stone to glorify, glamorize and practically romanticize a man...who authorities feel is a criminal beyond belief...a mass murderer...that without question boggles my mind.
As a way to counter what Rolling Stone did,
Sergeant Sean Murphy of the Massachusetts State Police - on July 18th,
2013 - leaked a series of photographs showing Dzhokhar
Tsarnaev in a less flattering way. The dramatic pictures were taken by Murphy the night
Tsarnaev was captured, but Murphy was not given permission by his
supervisors at the Massachusetts State Police Department to release the
stunning photos...one of which includes the bloodied Tsarnaev as he is
walking away from the boat where he had been hiding following a
statewide manhunt. Although he is surrendering... the picture shows the
accused killer with a red laser dot squarely aimed on Tsarnaev's head.
In giving the graphic photos to Boston Magazine, Murphy wrote that "The
Rolling Stone cover was an insult to anyone who has ever worn a
uniform. What Rolling Stone did was wrong. This guy is evil. This is the real Boston
Bomber...not someone fluffed and buffed for the cover of Rolling Stone magazine. There is nothing glamorous in bringing more pain to a
grieving family."Sergeant Murphy was relieved of his official duties for one day and now the 25-year law enforcement veteran has been placed on desk assignment.
Despite that...Massachusetts State Police Colonel Timothy Alben calls Murphy "a man of honor" but says his department has rules that must be followed. 
United States Attorney Carmen Ortiz isn't being as complimentary
towards Murphy. She says, "The release of these photos was completely
unacceptable." Still, when reporters recently asked Colonel
Alben if Sergeant Murphy would be fired, "The Bay State's" top cop replied, "That is not a realistic option in this case."Kudos to Sergeant Murphy. He had the guts to let his heart speak for his mind. In addition to his bravery as a police officer, he performed with much courage by giving the photographs to Boston Magazine.
The image of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev appears on the Rolling Stone cover... along with the headline..."THE BOMBER: HOW A POPULAR, PROMISING STUDENT WAS FAILED BY HIS FAMILY, FELL INTO RADICAL ISLAM AND BECAME A MONSTER."
There are many promising students...who may believe their family failed them...and they don't become monsters. They don't become murderers.
Where is Rolling Stone's sensitivity towards the people of Boston, Massachusetts and the families who lost loved ones? Have the magazine's editors no compassion for the relatives and friends who were injured because of the deadly, massive explosions that were allegedly triggered by Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and his older brother, Tamerlan? As we all know - the Tsarnaev brothers allegedly placed two bombs near the finish line of the Boston Marathon on April 15th, 2013. But despite that...Rolling Stone...for whatever reason...wanted Dzhokhar Tsarnaev to look like a so-called "pretty boy." But why?
In addition to the bombings, authorities also say the Tsarnaev brothers killed Sean Collier - a police officer from Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Meanwhile... Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has pleaded "not guilty" to that murder, along with 30 federal charges for the marathon bombings including using a weapon of mass destruction to kill. He could face the death penalty if prosecutors choose to pursue it. As for Tamerlan Tsarnaev...he died on April 19th after a gunfight with police officers in Watertown, Massachusetts.Rolling Stone says "The fact that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is young... and in the same age group as many of our readers...makes it all the more important for us to examine the complexities of this issue...and gain a more complete understanding of how a tragedy like this happens."
Inside the magazine... reveals an in-depth profile of the life of a seemingly normal teenager. What? What? A seemingly normal teenager? There is absolutely, positively nothing normal about any person who destroys human life.
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is not the All-American boy. And if Rolling Stone's goal - as is any business' goal - is to draw attention to their product and make sales...I suppose there are enough people in this country who will purchase the magazine...and profits for Rolling Stone will skyrocket. But shoppers won't be buying the magazine at CVS, Walgreens, K-mart or Rite-Aid. These companies refuse to sell Rolling Stone and have already pulled off the shelves the issue with the alleged Boston Bomber's picture on the cover.
But other retailers are selling the magazine...there are those who are buying it...and Rolling Stone is making money from it. Should they? Jack Osbourne - the son of rock star Ozzy Osbourne and television personality Sharon Osbourne - is responsible for launching a petition...which urges Rolling Stone to donate all profits (retail and advertising revenue) from the issue with Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's cover photo...to the victims, the surviving family members and the first responders who were affected by the Boston Marathon bombings.Jack Osbourne wrote in the petition letter that “Glamorizing a suspected terrorist on the cover of Rolling Stone magazine is not controversial, it’s just wrong. Innocent people have been killed or injured by the alleged actions of this man. There is no justification for awarding him a cover spot traditionally reserved for entertainment icons. It is this kind of action that encourages other sick individuals to act out in hopes of earning notoriety or martyrdom for their cause. We support the first amendment and the freedom of the press, but we do not support glorifying suspected terrorists in this manner. The innocent victims, their families, the first responders, and the people of Boston are the ones who deserve to be honored and remembered.”
Applause, applause to Jack Osbourne...as he has come up with a spectacular idea, which I certainly hope Rolling Stone will agree to do. The petition has already received more than 25,000 signatures of support. Whether Rolling Stone will accept Osbourne's challenge is yet to be seen. To date, officials from the magazine have not yet made any public comments regarding the petition.
Of course we...the American people...have the option to not buy the magazine...but even with the national outcry...there will always be those who are either die hard fans of Rolling Stone...who are simply curious...or who just don't care...and, therefore, issues of the magazine will be purchased.
As I stated at the outset...Rolling Stone has the RIGHT to print whatever it wants...but in this case...their RIGHT...is WRONG.
And that's The Controversy for today.
I'm Gary B. Duglin.
"We'll talk again."
The Controversy will make an effort to
publish a new commentary every Sunday and Wednesday. Unscheduled essays may
appear, from time to time, on other days as
well.
Copyright 2013 Gary B. Duglin and TheControversy.net. All Rights Reserved.
Please express your opinions in the
comment box below. You do not have to register your name and you can remain
anonymous if you prefer. The Controversy wants to know your views on the essay
above and on any other commentaries written on this blog. Just click on the
word "Comments" below and write your thoughts in the box that appears. Make
sure please that when you finish your statement that you click on the word
"Publish." Thank you.
Copyright 2013 Gary B. Duglin and TheControversy.net. All Rights Reserved.
I completely disagree with your entire assessment. You, like many Americans, are very short-sited when it comes to this issue.
ReplyDeletePart of the reason why this image is so compelling, and the point I think most Americans miss, is that it shows a different face of terrorism that most Americans don't acknowledge even exists.
The New Yorker did a very good piece on this specific aspect of the controversy a couple weeks ago in which they say about the image of Tsarnaev:
"What we didn’t see, and what perhaps we longed to see in our grief, or anger, or confusion, were any familiar images of the Islamic terrorist. The stories didn’t match the crime, either: the pot-smoking kid, the skateboarder, the student at the diverse Cambridge high school, the anonymous undergrad at the state college."
In short, we're so used to as a society being fed by the media what a terrorist is SUPPOSED to look like, that when we finally encounter someone who does commit an act of terror, but looks like a teenage heart throb, we lose our minds because we don't know what to make of it. It doesn't fit our paradigm as a society for what "terrorist" should be, so it must be wrong to talk about it.
The article concludes with what I think the most poignant of remarks I've heard made on this story:
"Yet the vitriol and closed-mindedness of the Web response to the Rolling Stone cover, before anyone had the chance to read the article itself, is an example of two of the ugly public outcomes of terrorism: hostility toward free expression, and to the collection and examination of factual evidence; and a kind of culture-wide self-censorship encouraged by tragedy, in which certain responses are deemed correct and anything else is dismissed as tasteless or out of bounds. The victims of the Boston Marathon bombing deserve our attention, and will continue to teach us about perseverance and the best parts of our common nature. But the dark stories of the bombing need to be told, too. And we need to hear them."
If you are a proponent of the 1st Amendment, and I believe you are, then don't be one of those millions of idiotic Americans who has a "hostility toward free expression, and to the collection and examination of factual evidence."
You can read the full New Yorker article here:
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/07/dzhokhar-tsarnaev-rolling-stone-cover-controversy.html
Thank you for your well-written remarks, however, I obviously disagree with you. I understand your point and agree with the fact that a terrorist may not appear to look the way the average American may envision a terrorist or any "bad man" to look. You may recall Ted Bundy...who was described by those who knew him as "an all-around nice guy." He held a degree in psychology after graduating from college with honors. He later went to law school. Bundy was also a volunteer for the Republican party and was hailed a local hero in his hometown when he saved a young boy from drowning. But Ted Bundy was a serial killer. He brutally raped and murdered numerous women. He obviously was NOT..."an all-around nice guy" - even though he may have appeared that way. The point I make in my commentary is that by Rolling Stone using the photo they did on their cover - at first glance - glamorizes Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and makes him "appear" to be a Hollywood celebrity. If Rolling Stone wanted to write in their article that terrorists don't always look like evil beasts - or "monsters" (to use their word) - and they published the photo they used on the cover...inside the magazine - instead of out front - thus not making Dzhokhar Tsarnaev the cover story...but providing the public with a different view of what or who can be a terrorist - then that would be providing Americans with knowledge that perhaps some are not familiar. But splashing the photo of a suspected mass murdererer on the cover of a magazine that is generally reserved for entertainment icons and - in most (not all, but most) cases - celebrities who are revered...that was totally inappropriate. And as far as me being "a proponent of the 1st Amendment"...which you are correct by believing I am... please refer to one of the first comments I made in my essay above. I clearly state that "I am against any form of censorship. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution gives the editors of Rolling Stone the right to publish anything they want in their magazine...or on their cover." But given the destruction of life and property that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is allegedly responsible for causing...what Rolling Stone did was "cruel and heartless." To adorn an individual who is suspected of being a vicious villain...that's just wrong. Plain and simple...it's wrong. GBD
ReplyDelete1. Rolling Stone is in the business of selling magazines. This issue is going to be one of their best selling simply because of the press coverage around it. Mission accomplished.
ReplyDelete2. Putting him on the cover was the whole point. As the other commenter noted, the purpose was to surprise people that he doesn't look like what they expect a "terrorist" to look like. When somebody casually looks at that cover they will at first think that it is in fact some celebrity or rock star. Then when they look closer and read the words they realize that it is a terrorist. This is where the shock comes from. Just because he looks like a rock star doesn't mean that he isn't a terrorist. That's the point that the cover is trying to make. If the picture were inside the magazine the picture would lose it's whole purpose.
The New Yorker article is spot on.
1. So in other words what you are saying...is that...as long as Rolling Stone makes a buck...all is good in the world of publishing. I'm sorry that you feel that way. It's a shame that you and Rolling Stone feel that money outweighs the hurt of other people. 2. And as far as "looking like a terrorist"...I already stated my point above. No of course not everybody who IS a terrorist... LOOKS like how we might envision someone to LOOK LIKE A TERRORIST. But to re-open wounds that will take years and years to heal - if ever they do - makes no sense to me... just to make money. GBD
Delete1-yes... that's how all companies work. rolling stone, cnn, nbc news, time magazine... any 'news' company only exists to make money. they don't exist for any other reason. this is the same with ANY company. they may say they exist to help people, or make a safer car, or report the news, or whatever their current approach is.... but bottom line is they exist only to make money so that is the highest priority. So to answer your question "yes... as long as they make a buck all is absolutely good in the world of publishing as that is the goal of any company".
Delete2-if it makes no sense to you that they do it 'just to make money' then its good that you arent in the publishing business
If that was the case...then how come no other publications put Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's photo on the covers of their magazines? Could it be that they wouldn't do something so hurtful to the citizens of one of America's largest cities following a horrific and tragic event? I suppose after 9/11...you would have approved putting a picture of Osama bin Laden - looking sweet and innocent - if such a thing could have ever been possible (which it wouldn't have been) on the cover of New York magazine? Hmmm. Yeah...I guess you would. GBD
Deletebecause other magazines arent rolling stone. it is all a business decision. if you take a magazine like time or newsweek or any of those that have a large demographic then they may decide that running an image like that would cause them to lose some readers. thats a business decision. rolling stone however knows that their core readers are NOT people who will get mad at that image. in fact the only people who are really mad about the image are people who probably haven't ever bought rolling stone or haven't bought it in years, so who cares about them? if anything some people who never buy it are now buying it just for this issue and meanwhile all their regular readers are still buying it because they dont care. so it was a great decision since they are now selling more magazines and thats their only goal.
DeleteIt's truly a shame that you feel that way. It's more of a shame that Rolling Stone feels that way. GBD
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete