JANN WENNER’S BOY CRUSH COVER What Rolling Stone did was totally disgusting and despicable and even Matt Tabibi, asked to defend the article and cover, did a piece in which he distanced himself from it, and made a better case against it than for it. Even Jann Wenner‘s running dog knew Rolling Stone spit in the face of those killed or injured by Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev. But you have to remember when you are dealing with Jann Wenner you are dealing with someone with no principles. He is nothing more than an opportunist. Jann is now catering to a demographic known as the "hate America crowd" made up of Islamics, Leftists, Nazis, Ron and Rand Pauloids all of whom want to blame Israel for terror in America. His flunky Reitman is a Jewish

reporter who covered the war in Iraq and disapproved of American military intervention there. This is what radicalized her and turned her into an apologist for traitors like Bradley Manning and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. Her piece begins, "Our hearts go out to the victims" which is trite and insincere. If their hearts went out to the victims they would NOT make Dzhokhar into a rock star. There is no doubt that Jann Wenner made a mass murderer into a youth culture hero. Remember there are groups on Facebook that say he was framed, that he is cute etc. Jann knew what he was doing. He is well versed in covert agenda's as he kept his homosexuality on the down-low for decades. Ask yourself this, ―Did Dzhokhar Tsarnaev ever think that what he did would get him on the cover of Rolling Stone?‖ ON THE DOWN-LOW

Jann Wenner, a world class scumbag, once moved in underground circles. The information above was given to me by Tom Forcade in 1971. The Zippies could have outted Jann at a time when there was a different attitude to gays as guys did not want their music to be shaped by people with ―girlie‖ or ―sissy‖ tastes. But it was politically incorrect so we did not expose Jann‘s real sexuality. In light of this cover and article we should have destroyed him - politically incorrect or not. When Rolling Stone first came out Jann Wenner published a lot of my discoveries about Bob Dylan in Random Notes including the hidden pictures on the John Wesley Harding LP and the backwards masking in If Dogs Run Free. He even did a cover story on me entitled BOB DYLAN IN THE ALLEY written by Claudia Dreifus. I would hang out with Jann when he visited New York at his hotel room in the Warwick. He wanted a copy of my manuscript on Bob Dylan, however I refused to give it to him. In retrospect I realize Jann was fronting for Dylan, who wanted to see how

much I had progressed in Dylanology. He was an underground press dude and not really a bad guy.

When a Congressional Committee suggested that the record companies stop advertising in the underground press because they were supporting violent protests and unrest by doing so, all the ads immedialtely went to Rolling Stone, a publication about music, not radical politics. Jann started his magazine as an underground music newspaper but quickly switched to Cold War liberalism. When Jann was in financial trouble he was bailed out by Max Palevsky (July 24, 1924 – May 5, 2010) an American art collector, venture capitalist, philanthropist, and computer technology pioneer. It was not long until Jann began getting ads from big corporate interests. As a result the Rock Liberation Front raided the New York City offices of Rolling Stone and removed all their advertising files after a physical confrontation where some secretary tried to grab me around the neck. I tossed Rex Weiner the Rolling Stone files like a football and he ran off with it into the crowded streets of New York. Rex went over to the other side and is now a correspondent for Italian Rolling Stone. The files revealed Wenner was consorting with corporate giants who supported the war in Vietnam. As a result of this office invasion I was permanently banned from Rolling Stone. Mark Jacobson was the only one who was allowed to use my name in the last 40 years. I was able to get into Rolling Stone one last time when I cornered Jann Wenner in the East Side bookstore and threw him up against the wall. I told him if the ban continued he was in for a beating. The next issue contained a blurb about me, labeling me the new J. Edgar Hoover of the underground who had dirt on

everyone. I caught Jann at the MORE conference and was about to kick the out of him when John Lombardi got in the middle.

REITMAN HUMANIZED THE SCUM WHO DID THIS. WHAT IF IT HAPPENED TO HER? WOULD SHE STILL HAVE WRITTEN A SYMPATHETIC ARTICLE? Reitman‘s article follows the same logic as Father Flotsky did in the Lenny Bruce comedy routine. In the modern day version Father Flotsky would say, Dzhokar you‘re not a bad boy. There is no such thing as a bad boy. My son, when the good road closes the bad road opens. And when the bad road opens the good road closes. Killing seven people and wounding 240 others doesn‘t make you bad. Now just say you are sorry and we‘ll put you on the cover of the Rolling Stone. This article is disgusting. It never once mentions the victims and it denies Dzhokhar helped his brother and another Muslim kill two Jewish pot dealers along with Tamerlan‘s ―best friend.‖ The article blames American foreign policy for radicalizing Dzhokar rather than Islam. Joe College gone wrong. The Jewish Daily Forward reported "Janet Reitman, a Reform Jew, was assigned by Rolling Stone magazine to investigate Scientology after returning from covering the Iraq War." So Janet is a reformed Jew. Here are some revealing excerpts from her article:

People in Cambridge thought of 19-year-old Dzhokhar Tsarnaev – "Jahar" to his friends – as a beautiful, tousle-haired boy with a gentle demeanor, soulful brown eyes and the kind of shy, laid-back manner that "made him that dude you could always just vibe with," one friend says. He had been a captain of the Cambridge Rindge and Latin wrestling team for two years and a promising student. He was also "just a normal American kid," as his friends described him, who liked soccer, hip-hop, girls; obsessed over The Walking Dead and Game of Thrones; and smoked a copious amount of weed. This low life leaves us with a favorable image of this savage excuse for a human being. He smoked a copious amount of weed. He also helped kill three pot dealers, cut their throats and sprinkled weed and money all over their corpses. In the 12 years since the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, there have been more than 25 plots to strike the United States hatched by Americans, most of which were ill-conceived or helped along by undercover operatives who, in many cases, provided their targets with weapons or other materials. A few – including the plots to blow up the New York subway system and Times Square – were legitimate and would have been catastrophic had they come to fruition. This is standard Ron Paul party line. Paul wrote, ―In April, the New York Times reported that most of these domestic plots were actually elaborate sting operations developed and pushed by the FBI. According to the Times report, ―of the 22 most frightening plans for attacks since 9/11 on American soil, 14 were developed in sting operations.‖ Even if Chairman Rogers is right, though, and the program caught someone up to no good, we have to ask ourselves whether even such a result justifies trashing the Constitution. In all of these cases and Islamist approached and FBI agent or FBI snitch and asked where he could get guns, explosives, poison gas etc. The FBI didn‘t make the first move the potential terrorist did. Janet Reitman hates America and wants security strip it so there will be more attacks. She is part of the Left / Right /Islamist America hating synthesis. Though Islam is the dominant religion of the North Caucasus, religion played virtually no role in the life of Anzor Tsarnaev, a tough, wiry man who'd grown up during Soviet times, when religious worship in Kyrgyzstan was mostly underground.

So what? What about his fanatic wife who was first picked up on Russian Security phone taps? They lived together as a couple in Dagestan. Anzor reverted to strict Islam upon returning home or his wife would not have lived with him. Cara, a vivacious, pretty blonde whom some believe Jahar had a secret crush on, insists they were just friends. "He was so sweet. He was too sweet, you know?" she says sadly. The two had driver's ed together, which led to lots of time getting high and hanging out. Jahar, she says, had a talent for moving between social groups and always seemed able to empathize with just about anyone's problems. "He is a golden person, really just a genuine good guy who was cool with everyone," she says. "It's hard to really explain Jahar. He was a Cambridge kid." Again getting high but denial of his killing the dealers he obtained the weed from. Note the spelling of Dzhokar as Jahar. Earlier she said he was known by this name by his friends. So Janet is Jahar‘s friend. This evil woman is trying to make him into a make believe Disney character. Jafar was the Royal Vizier of Agrabah and the main antagonist in Disney's 1992 film Aladdin and its 1994 sequel. "He kind of did, one time to me, express that he thought acts of terrorism were justified," says Will. It was around their junior year; the boys had been eating at a neighborhood joint called Izzy's and talking about religion. With certain friends – Will and Sam among them – Jahar opened up about Islam, confiding his hatred of people whose "ignorance" equated Islam with terrorism, defending it as a religion of peace and describing jihad as a personal struggle, nothing more. This time, says Will, "I remember telling him I thought certain aspects of religion were harmful, and I brought up the 9/11 attacks." At which point Jahar, Will says, told him he didn't want to talk about it anymore. Will asked why. "He said, 'Well, you're not going to like my view.' So I pressed him on it, and he said he felt some of those acts were justified because of what the U.S. does in other countries, and that they do it so frequently, dropping bombs all the time." Reitman is saying that it was not Islam that motivated Dzhokar but the evil actions of the United States abroad. Ron Paul: Many fellow conservatives say they understand the property rights and 1st Amendment issues and don't want a legal ban on

building the mosque. They just want everybody to be ―sensitive‖ and force, through public pressure, cancellation of the mosque construction. This sentiment seems to confirm that Islam itself is to be made the issue, and radical religious Islamic views were the only reasons for 9/11. If it became known that 9/11 resulted in part from a desire to retaliate against what many Muslims saw as American aggression and occupation, the need to demonize Islam would be difficult if not impossible. There is no doubt that a small portion of radical, angry Islamists do want to kill us but the question remains, what exactly motivates this hatred? If Islam is further discredited by making the building of the mosque the issue, then the false justification for our wars in the Middle East will continue to be acceptable. Idk (I don‘t know) why it's hard for many of you to accept that 9/11 was an inside job, I mean I guess fuck the facts y'all are some real #patriots #gethip," Jahar tweeted. This is not an uncommon belief. Payack, who also teaches writing at the Berklee College of Music, says that a fair amount of his students, notably those born in other countries, believe 9/11 was an "inside job." What ―other countries‖ are we talking about here. Moslem c ountries so why not say it? Aaronson tells me he's shocked by the number of kids he knows who believe the Jews were behind 9/11. "The problem with this demographic is that they do not know the basic narratives of their histories – or really any narratives," he says. "They're blazed on pot and searching the Internet for any 'factoids' that they believe fit their highly de-historicized and decontextualized ideologies. And the adult world totally misunderstands them and dismisses them – and does so at our collective peril," he adds. So it is the potheads of the world that constitute the majority of 9/11 revisionists, not the Islamics who first started it by saying all the Jews who worked in the World Trade Center didn‘t show up on 9/11. Larry Aaronson is the moron who told the Boston Herald that the pot dealers were killed by their black customers even though pot and money were sprinkled over their corpses on 9/11 and their throats slit.

Larry Aaronson, who taught Weissman at Cambridge Rindge & Latin School, told the Globe after the murders that Weissman had an unusually diverse group of friends. ―He had such potential and was such a good soul. He was just a good friend to a lot of people,‖ Aaronson said. ―He was friends with all kinds of kids, regardless of background. And that was what was important to him, that network of friends. If Larry Aaronson didn‘t come up with this stupid story as no pot or money was stolen perhaps the police might have looked harder at Tamerlan and discovered he was making bombs. So Larry Aaronson has blood on his hands. OFF THE RECORD Never Too Late to Protest The Rolling Stone Cover By Kara Bloomgarden-Smoke 7/30 6:30pm

The furor over Janet Reitman‘s Rolling Stone cover story on Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, which reached a fever pitch last week when stores including Walgreens and CVS announced they wouldn‘t sell the issue of

the magazine, has mostly subsided. But that doesn‘t mean everybody has moved on. On Monday, a very small group gathered outside of Rolling Stone‘s Avenue of the Americas offices, bullhorn in hand, ready to protest the story. It is true we were a small group but a very determined group. The protesters were led by A. J. Weberman, a Hawaiian-shirt-clad former Yippie who became famous for going through Bob Dylan‘s trash and is a current activist with the Jewish Defense Organization, a militant Zionist group. But a bullhorn isn‘t Mr. Weberman‘s only weapon. Last week, he bought the domain name, where he posted the journalist‘s personal information, found on Spokeo, along with calls to action, charging that Ms. Reitman is a ―self-hating Jew.‖ ―Look who wrote it,‖ Mr. Weberman told Off The Record. ―She‘s a ‗hate-America-type person.‘‖ Whatever one‘s objections to the cover, the article itself describes Mr. Tasrnaev as a ―bomber‖ who ―became a monster,‖ and is a nuanced portrait of the suspect. ―It wasn‘t favorable,‖ Mr. Weberman conceded. ―But it wasn‘t unfavorable.‖ Mr. Weberman‘s main objection seemed to be that Ms. Reitman‘s story didn‘t sufficiently cover the murder of three pot dealers on September 11, 2011, in which the Tsarnaev brothers have been reported as suspects. She wrote: ―On September 11, 2011—the 10th anniversary of 9/11—[Brendan] Mess and two of his friends were killed in a grisly triple murder that remains unsolved. Since the bombing, authorities have been vigorously investigating the crime, convinced that Tamerlan [Tsarnaev] had something to do with it, though so far there’s no hard evidence.‖

Janet said there was no evidence he killed the pot dealers when there was a confession from co-conspirator Todashev and DNA evidence is still being processed. There was cell phone evidence he was there that night. Every other publication that ran stories about this suggested the brothers were in on this killing - it was Tamerlan's "best friend" who got offed. In retrospect this is pretty obvious, in light of the Boston bombing. But not to Janet though so far there’s no hard evidence‖ proving conclusively that she is bending over backwards to make this is a NOT UNFAVORABLE article about him. It happened on the anniversary of 9/11. Nothing was stolen. The guys throats were cut and the money and pot sprinkled over them. This was a hate crime. Mr. Weberman was joined on Monday by the Yippies‘ ―Pieman‖ Aron Kay (who attained some notoriety in the 1970s for throwing pies at public figures). ―I‘m appalled that they made Tsarnaev look like a heartthrob,‖ Mr. Kay said, standing up from his wheelchair to talk to OTR. Asked if he had actually read the article, Mr. Kay said he hasn‘t read Rolling Stone since the magazine became mainstream over 30 years ago. The goal of the protest, according to Mr. Weberman, was to encourage the magazine to donate profits from the issue to bombing victims— and also maybe to unnerve the author. ―I‘m not advocating violence,‖ he said. ―It‘s psychological warfare.‖ (Ms. Reitman declined to comment for this story.) Of course she declined comment. No one at Rolling Stone is allowed to mention the name A. J. Weberman as I attacked Jann on at least two occasions. The guy seems to have fleshed out from those days and I would think twice about doing it now. Office workers exited the building, careful to avoid the small scene (the building also serves as temporary headquarters for the Daily News). Our only remaining question was why hadn‘t Mr. Weberman organized the protest last week, when

the indignation over the cover was still current? ―Last week I got all messed up because I smoked some very strong weed,‖ Mr. Weberman explained. This week, he said, he skipped the grass until after the protest had been organized. I had to call on an expert trouble shooter or troublemaker; however you want to look at it, David Peel, to help me plan this event. I got the dates messed up. I am accustomed to having someone else figure out the date and get the permit but that person runs a summer training camp and is somewhere in upstate New York. MATT TAIBBI DOUBLE CROSSES JANN WENNER Wenner had Matt Taibbi write a defense of the cover. Taibbi claims to have not seen it prior to publication. He is the brains at Rolling Stone, a slick communist who goes after the Jews by focusing on Wall Street firms that have Jewish names like Goldman-Sachs. Why the focus on GoldmanSachs? It ranks 5th in assets. He does a good job because as a communist who wants to see the world's wealth redistributed he is familiar with the machinations of the Capitalist system. In the world of Ron Paul supporters Goldman Sachs is a dog whistle term for Jews. Taibbi liked Paul but would not vote for him as Paul wants a weak federal government, while Taibbi wants an all pervasive one or invasive however you want to look at it. He likes Ron Paul's foreign policy like cutting off military aid to Israel. He characterizes Goldman Sachs as a bloodsucker with tentacles that reach around the globe only he phrases it differently. He uses dog whistle terms for blood libel. He uses another dog whistle term for Jew - Rothschild. Taibbi: Conspiracy theorists of the world, believers in the hidden hands of the Rothschild‘s and the Masons and the Illuminati, we skeptics owe you an apology. You were right. The players may be a little different, but your basic premise is correct: The world is a rigged game. We found this out in recent months, when a series of related corruption stories spilled out of the financial sector, suggesting the world's largest banks may be fixing the prices of, well, just about everything.

Taibbi has a book out in which he compares Rev. Hage's church to 9/11 revisionists. Hage's church just happens to be pro-Israel. After he did a piece on Dearbornistan Matt proclaimed that he is Fillipino and Irish and not Lebanese as many believed. This is how he is described: ―As Rolling Stone’s chief political reporter, Matt Taibbi's predecessors include the likes of journalistic giants Hunter S. Thompson and P.J. O'Rourke.‖ Taibbi thinks he is Hunter Thompson but there is no evidence of drug or alcohol abuse. The only gun he has is a Taibbi gun. P. J. O'Rourke who I worked with in smuggling joints into Honor America Day then at the East Village Other was always a rightwing hippie as was Hunter Thompson who I met in Flamingo Park. TAIBBI AS A MOLE? Matt's tight with the National Lawyers Guild. In 1993 he studied in Russia at Saint Petersburg Polytechnical University that may have been a former KGB front as an obscure KGB agent named Vladmir Putin also went to school there. He said he lived in Russia for 10 years where he edited a magazine called eXile. The Russian Federal Security Service was founded in 1995. Before that it was still the KGB. The guy might be an FSB mole, you never know in the world of intelligence? In June 2013, Taibbi and numerous other celebrities appeared in a video showing support for traitor Bradley Manning. Like other communists and their fellow travelers Taibbi hates Christianity and did a story in which he wished for the Pope's death. Like Reitman he was also in Iraq. His father Mike is mentioned in my book, My Life in Garbology, for using the garbological method in a news report. Basically Matt belongs on RT (Russia Today) not RS. Taibbi wrote that he was almost killed by a bomb in the Moscow subway detonated by Islamic Caucus Emirates yet this mole writes an apology for putting a person of the same mentality as the Moscow subway bombers on the cover of Rolling Stone. Show me another cover of Rolling Stone with a cop killer on it? Thought about this is split along political lines with the Left all for the cover.

Backstabbing Communist Tabibi turns on Wenner and Reitman rather than sacrifice his career:

Explaining the Rolling Stone Cover, by a Boston Native

I grew up in the Boston area, spent my whole early life there. To this day I'm a maniacal fan of Boston sports teams – in fact, I was moved to write this column when (to my great distress) I heard my employers being bashed on the Mut & Merloni show on WEEI, one of Boston's two main sports talk stations, one of the places I turn to not think about the news. I'm from Boston, but I also lived for almost 10 years in Moscow, Russia, where Chechen terrorist attacks were routine and a very real threat to the public on a daily basis. In fact, in the summer of 1999, I missed being blown up in a Chechen bombing of a Moscow subway station by just a few minutes. So I have no love for Chechen terrorists.

I also have tremendous sympathy and sadness for the victims in Boston of the recent attack, for the whole city in fact. Having spent such a long period of my life in the shadow of Chechen terrorism in Russia, I was mortified when it seemed that that war had arrived in my hometown. Taibbi knows he has to come through for Jann because Jann is his boss. But he does not want to sound like a moron. Reitman attributes Dzhokhar‘s behavior to American foreign policy while Matt looks at it as an act of international terrorism coming to his hometown. This implies that Janet focused on irrelevancies. I was particularly upset to learn that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev had spent time at UMass-Dartmouth, a place where my friends and I would ride bikes as kids to shoot baskets or play touch football, back when it was called SMU, or Southern Massachusetts University – the school was right next to my home in Westport, Mass. I felt violated when I saw the TV images of the campus on TV after the attacks, and it's still hard for me to accept that Tsarnaev was ever anywhere near that part of the world, which is so special to me. What about the people at the Boston Marathon Finish line. Don‘t you think they felt violated? Don‘t you think the people who saw that scumbag portrayed as a culture hero felt violated? Anyway, I heard about the Rolling Stone cover controversy before I even saw the cover or read the magazine. So Tabibbi is distancing himself from the cover, saying it was not his idea. I think it is true that Tabibbi was almost killed by Islamist separatists and abhors Reitman and Wenner actions. Terrorism is a real thing for him. I have to admit I was initially a little rattled when e-mailers told me my employers had "done a sexy photo shoot for Tsarnaev" and "posed him like Jim Morrison." I've known the editors of this magazine for over a decade now and didn't believe this could be true, but people get all kinds of surprises in life – you hear about people married for years before they find out the husband has a cache of Nazi paraphernalia in his basement, or the wife was previously a male state trooper from Oklahoma, or something – so I guess you can never really know.

Again Matt backtracks. He has to admit he was freaked out by the cover at first but then an image of Jann Wenner‘s dick appeared in his mind and this calmed him down. Then I actually saw the Tsarnaev cover, and honestly, I was stunned. I think the controversy is very misplaced. Having had a few days to listen to all of the yelling, the basis of all of this criticism seems to come down to two points: Putting Dzhokhar on the cover of Rolling Stone automatically glamorizes him, because the cover of Rolling Stone is all by itself a piece of cultural iconography that confers fame and status. Although Rolling Stone covers hard news stories and exposes the cover is generally reserved for stars in the music industry. This is epitomized by the song On The Cover of the Rolling Stone. Everybody freakin‘ knows this. Putting him on the cover made him a rock star. Matt is articulate: ―the cover of Rolling Stone is all by itself a piece of cultural iconography that confers fame and status‖ and makes a better argument for Rolling Stones’ critics and tormentors. The photo used in the cover makes Tsarnaev out to be too handsome. He's not depicted with a big red X through his face a la Time magazine's treatment of bin Laden, or with his eyes whited out as in Newsweek's depiction of same, or with a big banner headline like "NOW KILL HIS DREAM" like the one employed by The Economist in its bin Laden cover. He is called a "Monster" in the headline, but the word is too subtle and the font used is too small, making this an unacceptably ambiguous depiction of a terrorist. Good point about the font size. The hidden agenda in the Rolling Stone cover is to encourage terrorism (as long as it doesn't happen to you). That is why Dzokhar is called a "monster" and not a "terrorist." Look at the definition of monster: a. An imaginary or legendary creature, such as a centaur or Harpy,that combines parts from various animal or human forms. b. A creature having a strange or frightening appearance. 2. An animal, a plant, or other organism having structural defects or deformities.

3. Pathology A fetus or an infant that is grotesquely abnormal and usually not viable. 4. A very large animal, plant, or object. 5. One who inspires horror or disgust: a monster of selfishness. One could use the term monster thusly, "The child was a real monster." Now look at the definition of terrorist: ter·ror·ism n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons. You can't say "The child was a real terrorist." The purpose of this cover and article was to encourage terrorism. Jann Wenner and his running dog Janet Reitman are traitors and it is no surprise that she has written has written numerous favorable articles about Bradley Manning, a pre-op transsexual and convicted traitor who hates America enough to betray its secrets. I think, on the whole, the people leveling these criticisms must not read the magazine, which is understandable. It would be beyond unreasonable to expect everyone in the country to be regularly familiar with the articles in Rolling Stone. On the other hand, pretty much everyone has heard of Rolling Stone, which is where the problem lay, in this gap between the popular image of the magazine and the reality of its reporting. If indeed we were just a celebrity/gossip mag that covered nothing but rock stars and pop-culture icons, and we decided to boost sales and dabble in hard news by way of putting a Jim Morrison-esque depiction of a mass murderer on our cover, that really would suck and we would deserve all of this criticism. But Rolling Stone has actually been in the hard news/investigative reporting business since its inception, from Hunter S. Thompson to Carl Bernstein to Bill Greider back in the day to Tim Dickinson, Michael Hastings, Mark Boal, Janet Reitman and myself in recent years. Rolling Stone is primarily a music magazine. That is what it started out as an apolitical music magazine that record companies could advertise

in as an alternative to the underground press. There is no original reporting in Janet Reitman‘s story – it is a compilation of information in the public domain put together to make Dzhokhar look like a victim of circumstance – broken home, stranger in a strange land, dominated by his brother, hurt by Islamophobia on and on. One could even go so far as to say that in recent years, when investigative journalism has been so dramatically de-emphasized at the major newspapers and at the big television news networks, Rolling Stone's role as a source of hard-news reporting has been magnified. In other words, we're more than ever a hard news outlet in a business where longform reporting is becoming more scarce. Rolling Stones reporting is covered less and less by the other media as not much of it is really significant. What was the last Rolling Stone expose you remember? Not everybody knows this, however, which, again, is understandable. But that's where the confusion comes in. It's extremely common for news outlets to put terrorists and other such villains on the covers of their publications, and this is rarely controversial – the issue is how it's done. If the Rolling Stone editors had brought Tsarnaev in to its offices near Rockefeller center, wined and dined him, and then posed him for that Jim Morrison shot, then yes, that would be reprehensible. If my grandmother had balls she would be my grandfather. BIG IF. But that's not what the magazine did. They used an existing photo, one already used by other organizations. The New York Times, in fact, used exactly the same photo on the cover of their May 5 issue.

But there was no backlash against the Times, because everyone knows the Times is a news organization. Not everyone knows that about Rolling Stone. So that's your entire controversy right there – it's OK for the Times, not OK for Rolling Stone, because many people out there understandably do not know that Rolling Stone is also a hard-news publication. All kinds of people appear on the front page of the times – 99% of the time music celebrities or entertainment figures appear on the cover. There is no song with lyrics, ―See my smiling face on the cover of the New York Times.‖ As to the question of why anyone would ever put a terrorist on a cover of a magazine for any reason beyond the opportunity to slash a red X through his face or depict him in crosshairs, there's an explanation for that. Terrorists are a fact of our modern lives and we need to understand them, because understanding is the key to stopping them. We need to understand them, not glamorize them and encourage others to become domestic terrorists which is what this cover will do. The word terrorist is mentioned on 5 times throughout this lengthy article. But in trying to understand someone like a Tsarnaev, there is a delicate line between empathy and sympathy that any journalist has to be careful not to cross. You cannot understand someone without empathy, but you also have to remember at all times who this person is and what he or she did. I think author Janet Reitman did an excellent job of walking that line, but certainly this kind of approach is going to be inherently troubling to some, because it focuses on the criminal and his motivations and not his victims and their suffering. This backstabbing Communist is denouncing the cosmopolitan Janet Reitman before the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet accusing her of having sympathy for counter-revolutionary elements. Even he has to admit she has a tendency to over identify with the enemy. Which brings us to point No. 2, the idea that the cover photo showed Tsarnaev to be too nice-looking, too much like a sweet little boy. I can understand why this might upset some people. But the jarringly nonthreatening image of Tsarnaev is exactly the point of the whole story. If any of those who are up in arms about this cover had read Janet's piece, they

would see that the lesson of this story is that there are no warning signs for terrorism, that even nice, polite, sweet-looking young kids can end up packing pressure-cookers full of shrapnel and tossing them into crowds of strangers. What kind of scummy reporter writes ―packing pressure-cookers full of shrapnel and tossing them into crowds of strangers.‖ These were remotely detonated pressure cookers in knapsacks left at the finish line. There were plenty of warning signs, like his brother leaving the US to go enroll in Jihadist U. Thus the cover picture is not intended to glamorize Tsarnaev. Just the opposite, I believe it's supposed to frighten. It's Tsarnaev's very normalcy and niceness that is the most monstrous and terrifying thing about him. The story Janet wrote about the modern terrorist is that you can't see him coming. He's not walking down the street with a scary beard and a red X through his face. He looks just like any other kid. No matter how you cut it, how you want to look at it, putting him on the cover of Rolling Stone can only be looked at in one way. The dude is some kind of culture hero. I expect there will be boycotts, but I wonder about the media figures calling for them. Did they seek to boycott Time after its "Face of Buddhist Terror" cover? How about Newsweek after its "Children of bin Laden" cover? Or the New York Times after it used exactly the same photo of Tsarnaev? What about all those times that people like Khomeini and Stalin made it to Time's "Man of the Year" cover? On the other hand, there will be critics who will say that Rolling Stone is making money off the despair of the Boston victims, and they will be right. But this will also be true of every media outlet that covered the story. (It's even true of the outlets whose pundits are chewing up airtime bashing this magazine this week). That aspect of journalism is always particularly hard to defend, so I won't try. The other media is not glamorizing a mass murderer. Rolling Stone is.

However, it's been suggested, by (among others) Boston Mayor Tom Menino, that Rolling Stone expected this controversy and planned to use the image and the notoriety as a way to gain free publicity. I can't speak for everyone at the magazine, but my belief is that this is not true in the slightest – I know people in the office this week are actually in shock and very freaked out. They didn't expect this at all. Wenner knew exactly what the reaction would be. He has been in the newspaper business for half a century. It's impossible to become too self-righteous in the defense of something like a magazine when the bottom line of this story is, has been, and always will be that people were cruelly murdered or mutilated through Tsarnaev's horrible act. That truth supersedes all others and always will. So this is a defense of Rolling Stone that I'm not shouting at the top of my voice. What happens to the magazine and its reputation is really of little consequence in the grand scheme of things. But I do think this has mainly been a misunderstanding, one that hopefully will be cleared up in time. Matt admits he made a better argument against the cover and article than for it. Read more: CONTACT JANET IN PERSON AT ONE OF HER BOOK SIGNING EVENTS AND TELL HER WHAT YOU THINK OF THE ARTICLE AND COVER OR EMAIL HER. Jahar's World: The Making of a Monster