I simply cannot resist the urge to comment on this, if for no other reason than it gives me the opportunity to use the phrase "
TrollingStone magazine." Which I will do now.
Music and culture journalism bastion
TrollingStone magazine actually managed to something a little bit punk rock this week, possibly on purpose. Their new cover features a dreamy image of
accused Boston bombing suspect Dzokhar Tsarnayev, using a photo that could just as easily have been snapped at an after-hours dubstep show in Williamsburg. Not that I'd know. The offending image:
Let's leave aside the fact that "Pretty Fly for a White Guy" was a tired phrase 6 years ago, that Magna Carta will someday be viewed as a work of genius (whether we like it or not), and that THE ARCTIC ICE MELT GETS THE SAME AMOUNT OF SPACE AS GUY CLARK JR. Put that all out of your mind for the moment, so we can get back to literally judging this book by its cover.
Just look at him. All smug and self-assured. He really does look like a douchebag from an unadvertised underground bar you'll never be cool enough to get into. How dare RollingStone elevate him like that. Wait, hold on a second. Okay, they do go on to call him "The Bomber," which could be a cool DJ name, but then they say "How a Popular, Promising Student Was Failed by His Family, Fell Into Radical Islam and Became a Monster." Well, that's not very flattering. But still, putting an accused murderer on the cover of one of our most cherished (for some reason) national magazines is not something we would ever tolerate.
Hey, is that Hitler?
Hmm. That's odd, right? Genocidal mass murderer, despotic tyrant, two-time coverboy? Maybe
Time just has a weird Hitler hangup. Like how Huffington Post can't stop putting up stories about Ann Coulter. They just have a kind of Hitler fetish. Oh, wait a tic. Here comes Stalin.
That's a lot of Stalins.
Oh, and how appropriate that LIFE put Stalin on the cover, since life is something for which he had no regard. So it's not just Hitler. And it's not just Time. Could there be more examples?
And of course:
It's almost as if these magazines were somehow trying to grab the attention of their readers with provocative images and text in order to get them to purchase and read stories about current events. But does it work? Somehow
Time and
Newsweek largely (mostly) survived the massive boycotts that surely came as a result of these covers shown here (wait, there were none), and
RollingStone will survive its latest attempts to trick people into reading the news. It's unfortunate and unavoidable when journalists offend their readers. Well, mainly its unavoidable.
If I were an editor at
RollingStone (side note: I'm available!) I wouldn't lose much sleep over CVS or Walgreens or Wal-Mart or anyone else refusing to carry this issue. I'd thank my lucky stars for the free press and count the Internet traffic that comes rolling in, so to speak. Maybe that's the point. Or maybe it's just punk.