• Obviously it did

    The cover makes him look like a cool celebrity. It was in extremely poor taste. Much better is the picture with him all bloodied and a red laser dot on his forehead. I cannot wait for the day that he is put to death. Perhaps Rolling Stone can publish those pictures.

  • This image looks like He's being glorified

    Since when does a terrorist get put on the front cover of a magazine to look "good"? What is the point in that? The image contradicts the statements being made and what does the guy have to do with Rock and Roll? It seems like they ran out of topics to talk about so they just wanted to put something controversial.

  • Near glorification of terrorism?

    The most common argument towards a "yes" vote will probably be "Read the article", but this is irrelevant to the content of the cover. The fact is that there is a high-quality photo of a well composed Tsarnaev, in an almost Dylan-esuqe appearance. The image is as may more or less come off as inadvertently insensitive or a poor attempt to cause a stir with the goal of more purchases and subscriptions (if so, this has backfired greatly).

  • The cover is what matters

    Some people who say "no" argue that the article doesn't praise Tsarnaev. This isn't the topic in question though as clearly seen by the title question. The cover portrays the terrorist as cool, which is the last thing he deserves. The positives to the cover, increased sales and attention to the Rolling Stone, are outweighed by the negatives, namely the increased attention to the bomber and his idolization. This will unfortunately lead some to think that what he did was cool, and perhaps lead them to do similar acts in the future.

    If people like Tsarnaev weren't given so much coverage (and facetime) there would be less desire for others to do the same, as they would know that doing so wouldn't garner significant attention.

  • I think it did.

    Rolling Stone magazine is not meant for hard-hitting, journalistic inquiries. It is a music magazine which typically focuses on glamorous pop stars and up and coming rock bands. If this were a magazine meant to display such stories, it wouldn't be so offensive. But the same magazine that usually reserves such pictures for celebrities like the Jonas Brothers, Adele and Snooki should not be putting a picture of a terrorist in fashionable, attractive clothing on the cover page. It's glamorizing a person suspected of causing numerous deaths and terror throughout Boston, which I live an hour from. It is fine to point out he is attractive but that shouldn't be the main focus and the cover makes it seem like it is. So I'm happy at least CVS and Tedeschi has the class to pull that garbage from off the shelves.

  • Glorifying a terrorist is several steps past "too far."

    I believe it was in bad taste to portray Tsarnaev in such a positive manner on the cover.
    The story itself was not in bad taste, in my opinion, but making the bomber look like some teen pop sensation does nothing but send a message that doing something horrible, such as injure, and possibly kill many people, will get you on the cover of a magazine, and get your name out there.
    Sending out the message that "doing bad things will get you famous" is exactly what putting the Boston Bomber on the over of the Rolling Stone magazine is doing, and that is anything but good.

  • What a shame!

    Islamic teachings are just so stupid. How can you kill people to prove your point?
    This cover displayed the face of hatred and murderer. How stupid!
    Is Rolling Stone another form of hatred religion?
    I feel for the love ones who lost their lives because of this idiot and his religious belief(s).

  • Is the Bomber a Rock Star?

    Yes, the cover or Rolling Stone goes too far and has now lost moral credit with many Americans. Instead of portraying the Boston Bomber as a rock star on the cover of Rolling Stone... How about an execution by live public stoning?! American rock bands can sponsor the stoning providing the music and entertainment! Funds raised can go to the victims. Americans can buy sponsored stones also raising funds for the victims and their families.

  • Not at all

    Sure the cover photo is very alluring and it may seem like they are giving him a "rockstar" treatment as the American media is saying. But they did this to cause a shock factor and try to attract as many readers to their story about this monster. I myself will be picking up this issue to read their article on him. Plus, in a few years this may be worth some good money.

  • The bomber's looks are part of the story

    Multiple studies have determined that good looking offenders receive favorable treatment by our justice system. By all accounts, Tsarnaev is a charismatic individual with popular appeal to friends and neighbors. Although I doubt superficial traits could shield the bomber from a guilty verdict given the preponderance of evidence, charisma could be a factor during death penalty assessments. In a superficial society, even a terrorist's looks can be news.

  • No. Why would it?

    They don't salute him as a hero or anything. If he would get followers it wouldn't primarily be the fault of the Rolling Stone but the media circus in general. Terrorism is negligible compared to less spectacular causes of death and suffering, but like crime it is heavily overreported by the media.

  • History is not resigned solely to only those who appear evil.

    Over the course of time, our country has been subjected to terrorists. We've seen their faces on the news, magazine covers, and now of course on social media. If anyone mentions the names Ted Kaczynski, Timothy McVeigh, or even Mohamed Atta, and Osama bin Laden, we can quickly place images of those faces in our mind's eye because we've seen their pictures everywhere. Terror doesn't have to "look" evil.

    A young man, not more than a teenager with boyish good looks and McDreamy hair is no less a part of history than the terrorists that have come before him. He will forever be a reminder that terror has many faces. And, as with all terrorists, he has a story, a history of his own. People want to know who is this person? How did he go from being a young hopeful student to someone trying to snuff out the lives of thousands of people? And of course people want to know why. The genre of Rolling Stone as a whole doesn't matter. In fact, I think that it's probably because this boy is young and otherwise relatable to their target demographic that they chose to tell his story.

  • Charles Manson Was on the Cover

    OK, so people who are canceling their subscription because of this are sort of hypocrites. Charles Manson was on the cover in 1970. Does that make him a celebrity? Of course, but for all the wrong reasons. We look back and have heard of the most famous killers: Jefferey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, and so many others. Perhaps people will look back twenty years from now at Dzhokhar, but who knows. This does not promote him, nor does it make us cower at the sight. It shows us that this guy is a person like everyone else. He doesn't LOOK evil, and it's rare for someone to truly be evil. People need to look at him and think, "Hey look, he's a person like us." Also, people can see how he threw everything away with doing what he did. So basically, people just need to calm down.

  • Not a very smart PR move but journalistically reasonable

    This person's face has been on the cover of many magazines and newspapers and the question of how such an otherwise normal-seeming young man could have turned into this sort of monster is definitely an issue worth exploring. Rolling Stone has the same right as any other periodical to feature a story on this issue

    On the other hand, people whose faces are seen on the cover of Rolling Stone are immediately perceived as a "Rock Stars." Rolling Stone should have been sufficiently self-aware of this point and avoided this debacle. Apparently, the Rolling Stone cover has featured other abominable individuals such as Charles Manson in the past. From a brand-management standpoint I believe that this is a critical error is it confuses the consumer base as to the true purpose of Rolling Stone magazine. They deserve to suffer the consequences of having made such a crucial marketing blunder.

  • Shows him as a human.

    I was not the least bit offended by this cover as I think it shows him the way he is -- as a kid. Granted he was a kid who is very mixed up with respect to his politics but he is still a human being (not a "monster" as I hear so many saying. He was vulnerable (look at all the kids his age fighting wars in the Middle East) and it might be difficult to see him this starkly. But romanticized he was not.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.