Rolling Stone and "The Bomber"

Terrorism is a very sensitive subject in the United States. Incidents like that of 9-11, the truck bomb beneath the twin towers, and recently the bombing of the Boston marathon finish line leave our Government and citizens on high alert to any threat that may arise from the dark. Any captured terrorists are treated mercilessly and with the full wrath of this planet’s own superpower. In the case that one of these monsters could be seen as anything besides mindless murderers, the public is sure to react with an uproar. The Rolling Stone managed to create such an uproar with their recent choice for a cover photo In their mid-June issue. Featuring Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, The bomber, on the cover of Rolling Stone was definitely a daring move in marketing… but did it go too far in terms of valuing profitability over morality?

The general public seems to agree that this too far. The article behind the cover of Rolling Stone brought both bombers, but more so Dzhokhar (Jahar), to a very familiar and almost comfortable level. It told the story of a “popular, promising student was failed by his family, fell to radical Islam, and became a monster.”  It is difficult as victims of an act of terror to even try to imagine this person as anything but a monster to begin with, but Rolling Stone writer, Janet Reitman, seems to suggest that we should not only understand, but attempt to sympathize with Jahar’s past. In another article, Carmen Rasmusen feels that Rolling Stone is “the magazine that shouts ‘Congratulations! You’ve made it.’” and questions if “creating an act of terror is now considered something great..?” It’s a valid question, considering that the Rolling Stone is typically viewed as a milestone of super stardom. Even the issue in question had front page headlines with shout outs to Jay Z, Willie Nelson, and Robin Thicke. Even just at first glance, the Rolling Stone’s coverage seems to be sparking interest and conversation across the board.

However, this could’ve been exactly what someone wanted. Opposing arguments are presented in defense for Rolling Stone’s decision. David Carr, from New York Times, questions “When was the last time someone said to you, ‘Did you see the cover of Rolling Stone?’” and later mentions that “magazines are in a dogfight for attention, not just with one another, but with every form of media.” Clearly Jahar’s appearance brought Rolling Stone the attention that it needed, and was a smart choice in that respect, at the very least. The issue sold so well that The Boston media writer, Dan Kennedy, called this move “brilliant.” David Carr makes another point in Rolling Stone’s defense in saying that footage of situations like this will affect those that are personally involved much differently that it will someone who was half a world away. So “the misery of some should not determine the value to the whole.” But in order to ensure that people take the time to look beyond just the mere cover of the magazine, Carr also reminds us of our ever-present and cliche expression: you can’t judge a book by it’s cover.

Unfortunately, the article behind the cover may have been where the limits were pushed too far. Janet Reitman, mentioned earlier, writes of the destruction and describes it as “ a scene of unbelievable carnage that conjured up images of Baghdad, Kabul, Or Tel Aviv.” She seems to almost suggest that we should’ve expected this attack. That we deserved to lose innocent lives because of incidents that happen between us and real threats overseas. Reitman also goes into the past of both bombers. She tells of how they grew up running away from war. They were skilled fighters, and Tamerlan (Jahar’s older brother and partner in crime) was even hoping to represent the United states in the Olympics. So maybe they weren’t all bad? Sure, hundreds were injured. Three were killed, among them was a small child, mind you. But Reitman chooses to give these brothers a bit of a break and credits them as having promising futures and over-glorifies Jahar’s looks. Within the pages of Rolling Stone, there are very flattering phrases hovering around Jahar’s name. Apparently he was “a beautiful, tousle-haired boy with a gentle demeanor and soulful brown eyes” he was “so sweet” and “gorgeous” and so on… Is this really how we want a terrorist to be portrayed?

All of that trouble went into selling the article. Too much for the nature of the situation. Too much credit was awarded to a man who was involved with nothing else but an act of terrorism. Usually when terrorists are featured on magazine covers, it is to let the world know that they are either dead, or there is a threat. Not to frame them with the names of pop-culture icons and tell their ‘tragic’ back story. There is no need to pity a terrorist.