Outrage Over "Rolling Stone" Boston Bomber Cover

"Wanna see my picture on the cover
Wanna buy five copies for my mother 
Wanna see my smilin' face
On the cover of the Rolling Stone"
-- Dr. Hook & The Medicine Show

Looking like a modern-day Jim Morrison, the late singer of the band The Doors, Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev graces the cover of this month's Rolling Stone magazine, setting off a firestorm of protest and outrage that has retailers refusing to carry the magazine on their newsstands. 

Source: Rolling Stone.

It's not so much the content of the article that has critics steaming -- it's fairly balanced and seeks to understand the motivation behind what would lead someone to such a ghastly act -- but rather the gauzy treatment of an alleged murderer that gives him just the sort of notoriety he seeks. That it also could inspire other acts of terrorism in the hopes of landing on the cover of a magazine also rankles.

In response to the outrage at highlighting a terrorist instead of his victims, including 26-year-old MIT cop Sean Collier, who was killed in the shootout between the Tsarnaev brothers and the police, and 8-year-old Martin Richard, who was standing next to one of the bombs when it detonated, retailers including CVS Caremark (NYSE: CVS  ) , which operates 7,300 stores nationwide, Walgreen (NYSE: WAG  ) , with more than 8,500 stores, and Sears Holdings (NASDAQ: SHLD  ) chain Kmart have all decided not to sell the new issue of the magazine.

Grocery store chain Stop & Shop, convenience store chains Tedeschi Food Shops and Cumberland Farms, and Roche Bros. Supermarkets have also said they would not put the magazine out. 

Yet it's not the first time Rolling Stone has put a mass murderer on its cover. In 1970, Charles Manson was featured with the tagline "The incredible story of the most dangerous man alive," which is somewhat more phlegmatic than Tsarnaev's "How a popular, promising student was failed by his family, fell into radical Islam and became a monster."

Other magazines have also put murderers on their covers. Time magazine used O.J. Simpson's mugshot after the murder of his former wife and a waiter, and it's also made some controversial decisions for its "Man of the Year" covers, including Adolph Hitler, Josef Stalin, and Ayatollah Khomeini after the Iranian hostage crisis.

There is something that irks about seeing criminals glamorized, which shows the power an image still has, and while the Rolling Stone article is balanced, do writers really need to humanize the sick and depraved? Is the description of Tsarnaev as a "popular, promising student" of value when stacked up against the enormity of his crime?

Images may be powerful, but social media may be more so. Rolling Stone's Facebook page has been flooded with more than 17,000 comments on the article so far, most excoriating the magazine for its decision. But CVS used Twitter to make its announcement that it wouldn't be selling the magazine "out of respect for the victims and their loved ones," as did Kmart. Both Tedeschi and Roche Bros. used their Facebook accounts to make their statements, while Walgreen used both social media platforms.

So strong has been the outcry that Rolling Stone was forced to defend its decision by amending an editor's note to the article expressing sympathy for the victims but also saying it's part of its heritage of "serious and thoughtful coverage" of political and cultural news. To me, it's more like the Kardashians or any of the "Housewives" shows on TV where the entertainment industry attempts to popularize and normalize the most base, crass aspects of society.

Although print media has stemmed the worst of its declines as circulation slipped just 0.3% in 2012 (while paid subscriptions inched up 0.7%), the visceral reaction to this cover shows why the printed medium is not dead, or shouldn't be, if only publishers would stop trying to kill it off by angering and alienating their readership. Indeed, Rolling Stone's paid and verified circulation of 1.46 million, up from 1.28 million a decade ago, is among the highest it's ever been.

But edgy doesn't always mean cutting edge, convey gravitas, or even suggest good reporting, and giving a terrorist the "celebrity cover treatment" seems more a shameful push to garner eyeballs during a manufactured controversy than a throwback to the gonzo journalism of Hunter S. Thompson, who used to spill ink in Rolling Stone's pages.

What about you? Do you think Rolling Stone's decision to put the bombing suspect on its cover is deplorable, or is it simply an attempt to generate magazine sales through controversy? Take our poll below.

As this incident shows, social media can have an immediate impact on the discourse of the day. And while Twitter and Facebook gain much of the attention, there's one incredible social media stock growing twice as fast as Google and Facebook and more than three times as fast as Amazon.com and Apple. Watch our jaw-dropping investor alert video today to find out why The Motley Fool's chief technology officer is putting $117,238 of his own money on the table, and why he's so confident this will be a huge winner in 2013 and beyond. Just click here to watch!


Read/Post Comments (5) | Recommend This Article (2)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On July 19, 2013, at 10:20 PM, rvnswy wrote:

    Hey Stone, When did you get so fu**in' stupid.

  • Report this Comment On July 19, 2013, at 10:34 PM, rose11111 wrote:

    Its just a magazine every one have their own opinion about it. You can read it or not, Rolling Stone put a story out there like they always do. No one is saying what he did was right.

  • Report this Comment On July 20, 2013, at 6:26 AM, Nosloe wrote:

    Rollingstone is desperate for attention and to generate sales. It's not a serious publication like it used to be. For at least two decades the magazine has been nothing more than fluff stories and resembles low end publications like Teenbeat. It's not the first time they have celebrated a murderer.

  • Report this Comment On July 20, 2013, at 2:42 PM, opey100 wrote:

    Rolling Stone lost all credibility once they made the decision to became a gangster rap rag. In the beginning it was all about peace, love, and rock and roll. Somewhere along the way it morphed into a magazine that promotes, violence, narcissism and misogyny. They recently featured that immoral, no talent thug Rick Ross on the cover. This is a guy who's claim to fame is that he raps about raping women while they are unconscious. How do you go from Dylan and John Lennon to promoting two-bit criminally minded thugs that shout extreme profanities in a monotone over a computerized beat and not feel any shame?

  • Report this Comment On July 21, 2013, at 3:44 AM, eileenom wrote:

    Rolling Stone magazine is so over! Used to mean something to be on the cover of Rolling Stone-

    Now a terrorist and child murderer!

    No soul, no humanity, no compassion.

    new title "Rolling Stone Enquirer"

    no journalistic credibility -

    total sellout of the generaton of peace,love and rock n' roll-

    Times they are a changing and Rolling Stone you are done !

Add your comment.

DocumentId: 2544649, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 4/24/2014 2:37:21 AM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...


Advertisement