Even I don't always agree with my opinion

 

On The Cover Of The Rolling Stone

0
Posted July 20, 2013 by jim young in Lifestyle

– jim young

“(It’s) the thrill that’ll getcha when you get your picture on the cover of the Rollin’ Stone.” – Shel Silverstein

I wonder if it’s really such a thrill to Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. Either way I doubt he’ll be buying “five copies for (his) mother”.

In a world that often seems to glamorize serial killers, terrorists and mass murderers I’m surprised at all the fuss being made over Tsarnaev’s picture on the August cover of Rolling Stone magazine in the first place.

And just why wouldn’t Tsarnaev be on the cover of Rolling Stone anyway?

Charles Manson made the cover of Rolling Stone in the June 1970 edition so it’s not like there’s even a precedent being set here.

Rolling Stone, in their own words claims “The cover story we are publishing this week falls within the traditions of journalism and Rolling Stone’s long-standing commitment to serious and thoughtful coverage of the most important political and cultural issues of our day.”

I think that pretty much sums it up.

To suggest that Rolling Stone is strictly a music magazine, as some have done in their criticism of the Tsarnaev cover, would be as ridiculous as suggesting Playboy is strictly a “girly” magazine.

While both have their individual focus and specific target groups – these magazines are very similar in their commitment to human rights, cultural issues of the day and the high standards of integrity and quality that they demand in the articles between their covers.

Criticizing Rolling Stone’s choice of Tsarnaev on the cover because Rolling Stone is a music magazine is

playboy-men-cover-peter-sellers

as mindless as criticizing Playboy for publishing a cover with a man on it such as they did with Peter Sellers or Donald Trump because it’s a “girly” magazine.

Equally ridiculous, is the notion that Rolling Stone magazine purposely tried to glamorize Tsarnaev making him look like a rock star such as Jim Morrison. It’s not as if Tsarnaev posed for Rolling Stone photographers.

This was a stock photo previously used by the New York Times for their cover story last May. And yet there was no controversy then.

Would critics have Rolling Stone photo-shop the image as Time was criticized for when they used a photo-enhanced portrait of O.J. Simpson to make him appear more sinister on their June 1994 cover?
We like to have our villains such as Tsarnaev and Manson look like monsters because it’s easier just to hate them.

We don’t really want to think of them as real people – real people who were once children that played like other children – perhaps even our own children.

But they were – and unless you believe that evil is inherent, then something went wrong. Something went terribly wrong.

Attempting to understand WHAT went wrong will go much farther in preventing it in the future than will imprisoning or executing the monsters after it has.

-30 –

 

 

 


0 Comments



Be the first to comment!


Leave a Response