It seems magazines have run out of rock stars to put on their covers

[dadagoboi]

Ty Burr of the Boston Globe writes that the story itself is legitimate, but the cover shot is not.  The cover shot was put there to sell magazines and all other considerations were ignored.  It's a matter of nuances and choices.  From what I've read so far, Rolling Stone, of course, is now using its BS rationalization to justify what it did.  Ty Burr in his article says this---

By putting this Tsarnaev on the cover, Rolling Stone at best plays with and at worst buys into the accused’s own manufactured image, casual but potent, speaking in a language we all understand. Worse, by placing his selfie within the context of a magazine cover, a format regularly used to sell rock stars, movie icons, and models, the editors have collaborated with Tsarnaev in the creation of his own celebrity.

...Once again making the assumption the American public is too stupid or naive not to be manipulated by media or propaganda from the Corporatocracy.  Unfortunately, generally true.  That's not RS's fault.

What else is a cover shot for than to sell mags?  Usually too slick to wipe with.
 

[uwe]

I wouldn't want to live in a country where putting a terrorist or a serial killer on the cover of a mag was regarded inapt. Freedom of press isn't always tasteful, but irreplaceable.

[Dave W]

I wouldn't want to live in a country where putting a terrorist or a serial killer on the cover of a mag was regarded inapt. Freedom of press isn't always tasteful, but irreplaceable.

What does one have to do with the other? Freedom of press is a government issue. No one's suggesting that the government curtail RS's freedom to publish. OTOH private businesses are free not to carry the issue and private citizens are entitled to criticize them (or not).

[westen44]

I agree that this isn't a freedom of the press matter.  As the article below indicates, it's a matter of criticizing Rolling Stone's editorial judgment.  A lot of people thought Rolling Stone made a bad call and I agree.  Others, aren't so bothered.  But I don't think anyone is saying RS shouldn't be allowed to publish whatever they want to.  I also don't think their new interview with Steely Dan is a good idea.  But for reasons of their own, somehow RS seems to think it is.  I am, however, looking forward to their upcoming issue on John Wilkes Booth. 

http://www.salon.com/2013/07/17/rolling_stones_dzhokhar_tsarnaev_cover_gets_parodied/

[Psycho Bass Guy]

I dunno, maybe RS is just keeping up their recent tradition of putting douchebags on the cover frequently.

[uwe]

If it interests people, it is fit to go on the cover, simple as that. Anything else approaches censorship. You no like, you no buy. Had I seen it at a newspaper and magazine stand at an airport it would have caught my attention and I would have bought a copy because the minds of these people interest me.

[Denis]

I was listening to a spot on NPR about this and it was mentioned that this image has appeared in other news sources, though I missed if they said it had appeared on the front cover of any of them. Is RS getting so much flak because it's not primarily a news source?

[dadagoboi]

I was listening to a spot on NPR about this and it was mentioned that this image has appeared in other news sources, though I missed if they said it had appeared on the front cover of any of them. Is RS getting so much flak because it's not primarily a news source?

Front page of New York Times Sunday Edition in May, above the fold.  Can't get more visible than that.

RS is getting so much flak because the people who brought you the supposed 'War on Christmas' have nothing better to do than stir up the yahoos.  It helps divert their attention from the real problems this country faces...IMO.

[Dave W]

If it interests people, it is fit to go on the cover, simple as that. Anything else approaches censorship. You no like, you no buy. Had I seen it at a newspaper and magazine stand at an airport it would have caught my attention and I would have bought a copy because the minds of these people interest me.

Straw man. Nobody is suggesting censoring them.

[dadagoboi]

Nobody is suggesting censoring them.

What exactly is pulling magazines off the racks supposed to accomplish?

[Dave W]

What exactly is pulling magazines off the racks supposed to accomplish?

It's not censorship. RS' First Amendment right to publish doesn't include forcing private businesses to sell the magazine. It's privately owned companies choosing not to carry the magazine. The government is not involved.

[uwe]

A very labored differentiation, Dave. Once you create a climate where it is inopportune to put certain magazines on the counter for a story they publish, you are on a slippery thoughtcrime slope. Rolling Stone is not advocating terrorism with that feature and neither is anyone selling (or buying) this particular RS issue.

Besides its nothing new. If Jack the Ripper wasn't a rock star type/celebrity/icon centuries ago, who was? Murderers have always had their - albeit fleeting - fame. People have always been fascinated by violence, muderers and terrorists, what have you. The difference between people back then watching public hangings and  consuming media violence today is slight. Overall, western culture and life have probably become less violent, but people's dark obsession with violence has not decreased.

And of course it's interesting to read and see what made this guy do the things he did.

[dadagoboi]

A very labored differentiation, Dave. Once you create a climate where it is inopportune to put certain magazines on the counter for a story they publish, you are on a slippery thoughtcrime slope. Rolling Stone is not advocating terrorism with that feature and neither is anyone selling (or buying) this particular RS issue.

Besides its nothing new. If Jack the Ripper wasn't a rock star type/celebrity/icon centuries ago, who was? Murderers have always had their - albeit fleeting - fame. People have always been fascinated by violence, muderers and terrorists, what have you. The difference between people back then watching public hangings and  consuming media violence today is slight. Overall, western culture and life have probably become less violent, but people's dark obsession with violence has not decreased.

And of course it's interesting to read and see what made this guy do the things he did.

Uwe you obviously don't understand what it means to live in a country of laws...though I do encourage you to stand your ground.

[westen44]

A very labored differentiation, Dave. Once you create a climate where it is inopportune to put certain magazines on the counter for a story they publish, you are on a slippery thoughtcrime slope. Rolling Stone is not advocating terrorism with that feature and neither is anyone selling (or buying) this particular RS issue.

Besides its nothing new. If Jack the Ripper wasn't a rock star type/celebrity/icon centuries ago, who was? Murderers have always had their - albeit fleeting - fame. People have always been fascinated by violence, muderers and terrorists, what have you. The difference between people back then watching public hangings and  consuming media violence today is slight. Overall, western culture and life have probably become less violent, but people's dark obsession with violence has not decreased.

And of course it's interesting to read and see what made this guy do the things he did.

There is quite a distinction between the public and private sector and Dave is adeptly pointing that out.  RS was irresponsible, opportunistic, crass, insensitive, and sensationalist in having a cover like that.  It's insulting to readers and its insulting to people deserving of being on the cover such as John Lennon and countless others.  RS is not a serious news source despite attempting to make forays into that arena.  I know they did the story on the general that some people are still raving about.  Personally, though, that doesn't impress me.  RS takes itself way too seriously.  They can't even do music coverage right and now they can't do other things right, either.  My disgust for RS is very real and deep.  It's a POS former music magazine struggling to find relevance in a world in which being in the print media is now very difficult.  Coming out with that issue was a calculated risk.  It's too early to tell if it will help or hurt.  But it has definitely alienated a number of people and I am certainly one of them.  But, yes, RS has the right to publish garbage and those or us who don't like it should be free to complain about it.  

RS has said that one reason it felt it was okay to have a cover like that was because of the age range of its readers.  Yesterday, I read another statement from someone from RS who said that those complaining about the cover were people who most likely have never even read the magazine before anyway.  Assumptions such as these are presumptuous, inaccurate and even condescending.  As far as I'm concerned Rolling Stone magazine can take a flying leap.   I will no longer waste my time on RS.  In a sense, even this topic is a waste of time and gives the magazine way more attention than it deserves.  

[dadagoboi]

There is quite a distinction between the public and private sector and Dave is adeptly pointing that out.  RS was irresponsible, opportunistic, crass, insensitive, and sensationalist in having a cover like that.  It's insulting to readers and its insulting to people deserving of being on the cover such as John Lennon and countless others.  RS is not a serious news source despite attempting to make forays into that arena.  I know they did the story on the general that some people are still raving about.  Personally, though, that doesn't impress me.  RS takes itself way too seriously.  They can't even do music coverage right and now they can't do other things right, either.  My disgust for RS is very real and deep.  It's a POS former music magazine struggling to find relevance in a world in which being in the print media is now very difficult.  Coming out with that issue was a calculated risk.  It's too early to tell if it will help or hurt.  But it has definitely alienated a number of people and I am certainly one of them.  But, yes, RS has the right to publish garbage and those or us who don't like it should be free to complain about it.  

RS has said that one reason it felt it was okay to have a cover like that was because of the age range of its readers.  Yesterday, I read another statement from someone from RS who said that those complaining about the cover were people who most likely have never even read the magazine before anyway.  Assumptions such as these are presumptuous, inaccurate and even condescending.  As far as I'm concerned Rolling Stone magazine can take a flying leap.   I will no longer waste my time on RS.  In a sense, even this topic is a waste of time and gives the magazine way more attention than it deserves.  

I liked Baz's comment better, where'd it go?