
Rolling Stone grew out of a 1960s-era alternative news movement that combined intense coverage of music and the arts with hard-hitting coverage of current events. Most recently, the magazine’s scorching 2010 profile of General Stanley McChrystal led to the Afghanistan commander’s downfall. Yet because the reading public has long known Rolling Stone primarily for its music and entertainment coverage, many Bostonians are understandably concerned that the magazine is giving the bombing suspect a celebrity treatment he doesn’t deserve.
Most Rolling Stone covers do, in fact, depict celebrities in a flattering manner. Had the magazine been more self-aware, it might not have chosen a cover photo in which Tsarnaev wears a mop of unkempt hair and a brooding expression — much as musicians like Jim Morrison, Mick Jagger, and Bob Dylan have on countless previous covers of Rolling Stone. In the photo, Tsarnaev looks less like a murderer than a shaggy troubadour in what appears to be an Armani Exchange T-shirt.
Making matters worse, the magazine’s advance hype for the story hinted at a somewhat more sympathetic portrayal of Tsarnaev than many readers might expect.
Then again, the cover also identifies him as a bomber — going farther in asserting Tsarnaev’s guilt than the criminal justice system has at this point. All of which suggests Rolling Stone is better at trying to create buzz than at recognizing the sensitivity of an incident that led to four deaths and inflicted horrifying injuries on many more.
Still, readers shouldn’t assume that a cover story about a suspected evildoer represents an attempt to glamorize him. This issue of Rolling Stone should be judged not by its cover, but on the information that it brings to the public record.
— The Boston Globe
Comments are not available on this story. Read more about why we allow commenting on some stories and not on others.
We believe it's important to offer commenting on certain stories as a benefit to our readers. At its best, our comments sections can be a productive platform for readers to engage with our journalism, offer thoughts on coverage and issues, and drive conversation in a respectful, solutions-based way. It's a form of open discourse that can be useful to our community, public officials, journalists and others.
We do not enable comments on everything — exceptions include most crime stories, and coverage involving personal tragedy or sensitive issues that invite personal attacks instead of thoughtful discussion.
You can read more here about our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is also found on our FAQs.
Show less