Rolling Stone puts Boston Marathon Bomber on cover, incites outrage

Rolling Stone has reclaimed its former glory as a lightning rod for controversy.

The magazine made a huge stir today when it unveiled its latest cover subject, Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.

The choice has touched a nerve with many online, as Rolling Stone’s Official Facebook page has blown up with negative comments about the magazine’s decision to lionize Tsarnaev.

The editors of Rolling Stone responded to the outcry on their Facebook page, releasing a statement that reads:

“Our hearts go out to the victims of the Boston Marathon bombing, and our thoughts are always with them and their families. 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. The fact that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is young, and in the same age group as many of our readers, makes it all the more important for us to examine the complexities of this issue and gain a more complete understanding of how a tragedy like this happens.”

Of course, this isn’t the first time Rolling Stone has put a controversial figure on its cover, as Charles Manson once graced the front page. However, though the magazine is claiming it has journalistic motives behind giving the killer a cover story, many are taking issue with the glorification of Tsarnaev, as the magazine utilized a self-portrait that glamorizes him. While it could be argued that the magazine is attempting to illustrate the contrast between the heinous nature of his Tsarnaev’s act and his relatively normal, handsome appearance — a way of commenting on the transmutable nature of evil — readers don’t seem to be terribly understanding.

And it’s kind of hard to blame those critics. Yes, Rolling Stone frequently engages in investigative journalism, rising above the usual trappings of your standard entertainment publication. But it seems short-sighted and poorly thought out to allow a killer to grace the cover of a magazine that many people work their entire lives to grace. Of course, the cover of Rolling Stone carries less cultural cache these days than it used to, given the diminishing stature of print media in the digital age. But the prevailing argument among the masses is that the magazine could have easily done a feature article on Tsarnaev without putting him on the cover like he’s some kind of rock star. I’m sure a lot of people have dreamed of being on the cover of Rolling Stone, but I’m not so sure any of those people realized that killing a bunch of people would do the trick.

What do you think? Is this the proverbial tempest in a teacup? Or are people right to be upset? Sound off in the comments!