<p>I just read the article, and found that pretty much everything in it was the same stuff I heard within the 24 hours or so immediately after the bombing.</p>
<p>It is indeed disturbing that a kid who appeared to be so “assimilated” took that road, but the disintegrating family + domineering brother + radical Islam seems to explain it. I didn’t find any fresh insights.</p>
<p>I was struck by the fact that his friends, when they realized what he had done, immediately took steps to actually HIDE evidence. Actually obstruct the investigation. Apparently they were not moved to repugnance by the suffering of his victims. I can recall being stunned and in denial when someone I knew in HS committed multiple, brutal murder. But actually hiding evidence is another matter.</p>
<p>PG, I think you are mis-characterizing the core objection some of us have to putting that particular picture on that particular magazine cover.</p>
<p>“And it would make us feel better if every picture of him was brooding or tortured or menacing, and he posed regularly with guns or bombs. But none of that appears to be true.”</p>
<p>but this is the only value in seeing his photo on the cover, to see that one can look and act completely normal, and social and still be a sociopath capable of harming many without any remorse. I have yet to see Dzokhar or his immediate family express one iota of empathy or remorse, have I missed that? (his uncle expressed this and I found his outrage at their hateful actions appropriate)</p>
<p>If he was only influenced by his brother, misled, innocent, I believe we would have seen some remorse, especially because his brother is gone. But we have not seen or heard any remorse.</p>
<p>I don’t know yet whether he has remorse or not - he’s not holding press conferences. That will come out sooner or later, but meanwhile he still needs to be punished for the gravity of his actions, whether he’s remorseful or not. I guess I don’t see the glamorization in the picture; it just seems like the same old head shot of him we’ve seen all this time. </p>
<p>“Bad guys” are on magazine covers all the time. Is it that this is RS and not, say, Time magazine?</p>
<p>he’s not holding press conferences however he did pen a statement about his actions. his words spoke volumes;
The note – scrawled with a marker on the interior wall of the cabin – said the bombings were retribution for U.S. military action in Afghanistan and Iraq, and called the Boston victims “collateral damage” in the same way Muslims have been in the American-led wars. “When you attack one Muslim, you attack all Muslims,” Tsarnaev wrote.</p>
<p>Pretend this had been an unflattering photo of him. Would you feel differently?
Or what if it was accompanied by an interview exclusive to RS in which he apologized and showed remorse? (I realize not possible when we’re not at the trial stage, but hypothetically) </p>
<p>I guess I’m just trying to parse out what amount of the discomfort is –
a) this is Rolling Stone which mostly features celebrities, versus a “hard news” magazine;
b) the picture makes him look attractive vs unattractive;
c) so far he’s not shown remorse. </p>
<p>Take each of those assumptions and play with them. The exact same picture has been on the front of the NY Times. He can’t help that he’s reasonably attractive and not “creepy” looking. (His brother was too, to be honest.) Osama bin Laden’s picture was on a whole host of magazines and he never showed remorse either, so I don’t really think it’s that.</p>
<p>Then there is really nothing that can be explained to you, other than assuredly the RS editors knew exactly what they were doing and braced themselves for the happy (from a publishing standpoint) controversy that moves magazines off shelves. </p>
<p>Whether the photo was a selfie from months ago or a posed photo by a professional photographer is irrelevant. It’s the way the photo is used that is at issue.</p>
<p>this is a murderer who has a teen fan club and RS is simply exploiting that. from a marketing perspective it’s a smart strategy. while I can agree, it’s helpful to learn more about what factors contributed to his actions, my issue is that it also has the power to influence other potential killers. furthermore it is offensive to our fellow Americans who have lost family members and limbs. so my vote is don’t do it so soon after this terrible tragedy.</p>
<p>I think Bin Laden is a poor example as he had no fans that I ever knew of. We have a strange culture these days of reality tv where many take actions and post them online simply to be famous or notorious. I am frightened that some teens find him innocent, hot, whatever. I am scared for our culture when we aren’t reviled by his actions and we start looking for how he was an innocent.</p>
<p>Maybe I’m missing something, but the photo looks much like other photos I’ve seen of this kid–just bigger. I have not read the article. Does it have a slant in his favor? In my view, the kid is bad news–don’t know what radicalized him, but he should stand trial and accept the consequences. Seems like the evidence against him is pretty clear cut. Do people think that portraying him as a good kid swayed by circumstances should mitigate the fact that he killed people? Or is the outrage that the RS photo doesn’t portray him as evil? </p>
<p>Many evil people don’t look like crazed monsters–they look like regular folks. Hannah Arendt wrote a book about the people who participated in the Holocaust killings–she maintained that most of them werent sociopaths–just average people who accepted the Nazi regime’s premises and participated because it what they were supposed to do. I think this kid bought into his brother’s radicalism and did what he thought he should. </p>
<p>A young woman from my town was one of those who was hurt–she is a great kid from a great family. I don’t have much sympathy for terrorists and not much for this one. I really don’t believe he’s going to be the next teenage heartthrob because of the photo and I don’t think it would sway a jury or a judge that he is not without fault.</p>
<p>It’s EXACTLY the same photograph that has been in the public domain ever since the story broke. That’s why I’m not getting the “glamorization” at all. I would see it if Rolling Stone had sent out a photographer for a photo shoot, softened the photo, put hearts and flowers and puppy dogs around it. But it’s the exact same photo that we’ve all seen from day one, so I don’t know how putting it on Rolling Stone (versus on the cover of the NY Times or the Boston Globe, where it’s already been) glamorizes it. </p>
<p>The headline SAYS something to the effect of “how did this kid turn into a monster.” The word monster’s pretty direct. It’s not as though the headline is “Jahar, cute new teen sensation!”</p>
<p>People who kill other people always become newsmakers. Whether it’s the guy in the Batman movie theater shootings, the guy who shot Gabby Gifford in AZ, or (dare I say it) George Zimmerman. As such, their pictures wind up on magazine and newspaper covers all the time, so I’m not getting why this is much different. </p>
<p>No one here is accepting or excusing of his actions. I’d love for him to get a death penalty, personally. I can be disgusted by his crime but still not see this particular photo as “glamorization.”</p>
<p>Sorry, until I see some clear evidence to the contrary, I don’t think Rolling Stone or any other reputable magazine for literate adults (yes, I am excluding magazines like ‘Seventeen, Tiger Beat,’ etc. if they even still exist today) is glamorizing Tsarnaev. Not in the least.</p>
<p>We may always have silly teenagers, and adults for that matter, whom have a bizzare attraction to people who commit hideous acts, but that has never been normal. I’d wager that every killer with wide notariety gets mail signed xxx/ooo. Doesn’t mean that society at large is in danger of falling in love with them. Sometimes I think the egomaniac Bill Maher is right. No with a lick of sense has glamorized our little terrorist, but we don’t want to admit that he’s quite content to be monster.</p>
<p>Do you think they would have put a similar photo on the cover if he looked like George Zimmerman? Do you think they would sell as many copies? I have a feeling that the answer to both questions is no.</p>
<p>Bromfield–one of my concerns is that there are already teens who are perceiving him this way, which is a tad scary, and the cover simply reinforces this image to that group of kids.</p>
<p>Lindz, why does THIS cover reinforce it any more than the EXACT SAME PICTURE which has already appeared in numerous media outlets? That’s what I’m really not understanding. </p>
<p>DonnaL - do I think they’d put a similar photo on the cover if he looked like George Zimmerman? I don’t know, but George Zimmerman’s picture has made quite a few newsmagazine covers. Why aren’t those outlets accused of “glamorizing” GZ? </p>
<p>Is it that a photo of an attractive person by definition is “glamorizing” that person?</p>
<p>I never said this cover reinforces it more. but due to the fan club issue it is a little different when it appears on the cover of the rolling stone…I don’t think that was an accident on RS’s part. </p>
<p>but more importantly as a mental health professional, who works actively with a suicide prevention non profit, I don’t like to see any homicides or suicides plastered anywhere in the media because of the effect we do see on others. based on my perspective, there are guidelines that are important to follow.</p>
<p>RS did not invent the Jahar fan club, but they are certainly exploiting it. As Lindz suggests, and as the Atlantic article discussed, the publicizing of certain things creates copycats. There is a reason why suicide bombers make martyr videos.</p>
<p>Every single killer / bad guy has had some kind of fan club. There are always going to be a few people who glamorize bad guys - look at Ted Bundy. They do that REGARDLESS of where his picture is. The Free Jahar movement (such as it is) came about right after the marathon bombing. They didn’t need to wait for pictures on RS. They had the exact same picture from the NY Times and Boston Globe.</p>
<p>If it had little hearts drawn on it, and headlines like “what are Jahar’s favorite foods?” and “what color lipstick does he like on a girl?” - then yeah, I’d say they were glamorizing him and making him a teen idol. But they didn’t. They took the exact same picture that’s been around since April. I just don’t see why it’s more exploitative than if it had been Time magazine.</p>