Sam Whitehorn October 24, 2013 Harris Comp 2, Essay 2

Tsarnaev
The Boston Marathon bombing took place on April 15, 2013 at 2:49 p.m. The two pressure cooker bombs killed three and injured hundreds. Americans were in the crosshairs of terrorism again, not separated from the violence by the Atlantic and iPhones. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is one of two brothers accused in planning and executing the attack on streets of Boston. On August 1 of the same year, Rolling Stone ran a cover featuring Tsarnaev. The uber-sensualized nature of the cover was ill-conceived and a prime example of media callousness. The vitriol incited in Bostonians because of the cover is immediately evident in reading responses to seeing the photo for the first time. The most relevant, perhaps, being those of the ones most immediately affected by the attack. J.P. and Paul Norden of Stoneham, Massachusetts each lost a leg due to the explosion. Their first-hand acquaintance with the attack lends a certain validity to assertions of irresponsibility and insensitivity leveled on Rolling Stone by the brothers. Your irresponsible behavior did more to tear open wounds and insult victims, survivors and families that have been slowly healing and accepting the horrendous acts of terrorism, the two said in a released statement. Dic Donahue is an MBTA officer who was directly involved in the shootout with the Tsarnaevs. I cannot and do not condone the cover of

the magazine, which is thoughtless at best, said Donahue. (Disgusting) This sort of response shows the unintended harm the cover caused. Whether Rolling Stones motives were primarily artistic, monetary, or educational, the wounds they re-opened were visceral. The photo used is a misrepresentation of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. Rolling Stone is well aware that Tsarnaev was bloodied and deranged-looking when he was arrested in a Boston suburb. They are also well aware that Tsarnaev has numerous photos taken of him before the accident in which he looks like any other kid growing up in America. It is relatively easy to make this statement because of Rolling Stones ubiquitous presence in social media. Almost every writer at Rolling Stone has a Facebook page, a Twitter account, and even a blog. Less tousle-haired, more approachable Tsarnaev photographs are easily found in a Google search. This cover was chosen because it was deemed incendiary in its homage to Jim Morrisonesque sexuality. He was essentially labeled the bad-boy of terrorism by Rolling Stone. But, why would Rolling Stone Magazine, infamous in its coverage for the oppressed and marginalized, run a controversial glamour shot of a supposed terrorist? The most common answer has been the almighty dollar. Magazine Sells have dipped in the past 5 years due to more easily accessed news in evolving avenues, such as Twitter. In the first half of 2012, magazine sales in the United States fell by a whopping 10%. (Greenslade) Rolling Stone ran the cover on July 17, 2013. Rolling Stone magazine sales spiked soon after its publication. This particular issue doubled in sales, while sales of the magazine since have risen 20%. (Schumann) A feared potential consequence of Rolling Stones running of the controversial cover could be its role as motivation in a future terrorist attack. Boston mayor Thomas M. Menino felt that the depiction was important enough to write an open letter to Jann Wenner, the legendary Rolling Stone CEO and publisher, the day after the cover was released. In the letter, Menino

sounds appalled and somewhat vindictive. To respond to you in anger is to feed into your obvious market strategy...it is ill-conceived, at best, and re-affirms the terrible message that destruction gains fame for killers and their causes. (Menino) This sentiment is not one solely held by the mayor. In recent domestic mass murders, the media coverage has been deemed overblown and unjust. The way our news media descends on a community in crisis, thieves its grief, and overlays false narratives atop the real can be permanently and alienatingly traumatic, writes Rin Kelly of Salon.com. (Kelly) The shooting in Aurora, Colorado, for example, seemed designed to generate fame. James Holmes showed up in a Batman mask, body armor, and Jokerish hair paint to murder people in a crowded movie theatre at a midnight showing of one of the most popular movies of 2012. His entire plan seemed orchestrated to achieve buzz and make a name for himself. Sadly, its easily arguable that he was successful. While Tsarnaevs attack seems less inspired by dreams of cable television and popular periodicals, this doesnt excuse Rolling Stone from being somewhat careless with a very sensitive and a rather pertinent issue in our time. The standard rebuttal to these charges of callousness and money-mongering against Rolling Stone has been the role of cultural educator that the cover might play. Matt Taibbi, a talented Rolling Stone writer, takes this avenue of defense along with other, less well thought out arguments. The jarringly non-threatening image of Tsarnaev is exactly the point of the whole story, writes Taibbi. (Taibbi) This is where Taibbi falters. He downplays the image as a nonthreatening, innocent picture of a sweet kid. The effect the picture has on audiences is vastly different, however. The cover, in contrast to what Taibbi thinks, is quite jarring in its overt sexual nature and its GQ, Paris-like terrorist. This argument obviously would have held water if the depiction was more American suburbia and less brooding rock star. Rolling Stone seemed to

be almost validating Tsarnaevs actions with a cover suggestive of dark, alluring sadism. The main problem with running a yearbook picture, in Rolling Stones view, was the lack of reaction. In an age of falling magazine sells and dwindling newsstands, Rolling Stone made a move. And it worked. Rolling Stone magazine is still, in my view, worth reading and a tonic to some vomitinducing politics that run the world today. It is still a legitimate periodical, and I love the exposure they offer to my favorite, sometimes forgotten, bands. The cover disappointed me on many levels. For one, it felt like a breach of friendship. I had relied on Rolling Stone to somewhat guide my opinions on modern America and our influence throughout the changing world. The cover showed me a side of Rolling Stone I didnt really want to know. A moneyhungry, pot-stirring, executive-led, and business-minded periodical separated from the common man. This is not the Rolling Stone I know. And Im willing to forgive. Secondly, the cover is worrisome in the new era of media coverage it may signal. I hope a shift towards glamourizing the violently audacious isnt on the horizon. I doubt it is. Sales may have spiked, but even loyalties such as mine were tested by the slick, shoulder-slouched hunk on the cover. Heres to hoping my loyalty wont be tested again anytime soon.

Works Cited
1. The Bomber. 2013. Rolling Stone Magazine. July 17. 2. McCollester, Darren. 2013. Getty Images. 3. Menino, Tom. Letter to Mr. Jann Wenner, publisher of Rolling Stone Magazine. July 17, 2013. 4. Taibbi, Matt. Explaining the Rolling Stone Cover, by a Boston Native. Taibblog, Rolling Stone. July 19, 2013. Blog. 5. Boston Marathon Bombing Victims: Rolling Stone Cover Disgusting. July 17, 2013. CBS: Boston. 6. Greenslade, Roy. U.S. Magazine Sales Dip Even Further. The guardian.com. August 8, 2012. Retrieved October 20, 2013. 7. Schumann, Rebecka. Rolling Stone Magazine Sales Double After Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Cover Debut. International Business Times. August 1, 2013. 8. Kelly, Rin. Do Media Vultures Perpetuate Mass Shootings?. December 29, 2012. Salon.