<p>
You said it. Not me. I have never said any of that. </p>
<p>RS merely fitted the picture to be aesthetically pleasing on a magazine cover. They focused on the face. Just like they’ve done with everybody else. I don’t see what the big hooplah is about this cover. I just don’t.</p>
<p>Because artistically, that’s what fit best in the space the NYTimes had. Artistically, cropping the picture made it fit best in the space RS has. I don’t see that as controversial or problematic or “glamorizing.” I don’t expect the art director at the RS to put something off-center or smaller than he can just because the NYTimes did it differently. I expect him to stay away from the kind of manipulation I was mentioning earlier and it seems as though none of that went on.</p>
<p>I could see the exact same picture cropped the same way on the cover of Time magazine. Could you?</p>
<p>
Yes, I can see Time doing the same thing.</p>
<p>Yes, I could too.</p>
<p>On the other hand, I can see the New York Post using the cropped photo with a screaming headline.</p>
<p>My H did subscribe to RS for a certain period. I admit I just looked at the pictures and I didn’t read the magazine articles except for a few like Taibbi’s. I have a few magazines saved. Listed below are some of RS’s serious articles with the title displayed on the front cover. However, the front cover photo is usually some celebrity. There is an article about the celebrity.</p>
<p>Feb. 17, 2011 – “Gen. Petraeus & The Debacle in Afghanistan”
front cover photo: Elton John.</p>
<p>April 14, 2011 issue – “The Kill Team: How U.S. Soldiers in Afghanistan Murdered Innocent Civilians for Sport”<br>
front cover photo: Rihanna </p>
<p>April 28, 2011 issue – “The Real Housewives of Wall Street: Look Who’s Cashing In on the Bailout” by Matt Taibbi<br>
front cover photo: Adele</p>
<p>May 12, 2011 issue – “Our Nuclear Nightmare: The U.S. has 31 reactors that are just like Japan’s”
front cover photo: Steven Tyler</p>
<p>May 26, 2011 issue “The People vs Goldman Sachs” by Matt Taibbi
Front cover photo: Bob Dylan</p>
<p>Jul 7-21, 2011 – “Climate of Denial: The Media & the Merchants of Pollution” by Al gore
front cover photo: Katy Perry wearing her Hershey kisses bra</p>
<p>Sept. 1, 2011 issue – “Is the S.E.C. Covering UP Wall Street Crimes” by Matt Taibbi
front cover photo: Red Hot Chili Peppers</p>
<p>Nov. 24, 2011 issue – “Inside Occupy Wall Street” plus “What It Means” by Matt Taibbi
Front cover photo: George Clooney</p>
<p>Feb. 2 , 2012 issue – “WikiLeaks’ Founder Tells All” by M. Hastings
Front cover photo: David Bowie</p>
<p>My stance is not to put DT on the front cover. Period. I respect other people’s nonchalant view but I don’t understand it.</p>
<p>Not to put DT on the cover of RS, or on any magazine? Because that’s a different argument. That says that ANY photo glamorizes a killer.</p>
<p>Pizzagirl, my whole post was about RS. You question the difference b/w RS and NYT. The previous posts were all talking about the RS cover vs NYT photo. If you need me to qualify my statement, here it is: My stance is not to put DT on the front cover of RS. Period. I respect other peoples nonchalant view but I dont understand it. </p>
<p>I don’t want to speculate putting him on the cover of some other magazine.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How about if they put on the front cover a photo of bomber 2 while he is in the process of placing bombs to kill children. At least that would be more telling of his true character.</p>
<p>I’d say that it is pretty clear that if RS only had those images to work with, razorsharp, they would have gone with Rihanna or [insert pop celebrity here] instead. :)</p>
<p>Apparently a law enforcement officer released photos of bomber 2 with blood over his face and one with a laser pointed at his forehead. Those are the photos that should be on the front page of magazines.</p>
<p>
Those photos were not available when RS did its cover.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why? Because it fits your perception of what a terrorist should look like? Both photos are an accurate representation of him.</p>
<p>That’s the bothersome part - that he really does look like your average decent looking teenage kid whom you might have let your daughter date or hire to cut the grass. The very fact that he looks “normal” as opposed to menacing IS uncomfortable. But it’s the truth. Not every bad guy looks like the crazed Charles Manson lunatic type.</p>
<p>The entire point of putting Tsarnaev on the cover was so people would see it, see the headline, and want to read the article. If they put a celebrity on the cover, less people would read that article about Tsarnaev. It’s the same reason bin Laden was on so many covers after he was killed. </p>
<p>I like this article explaining just how silly this whole controversy is:
[Matt</a> Taibbi Explains the Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Rolling Stone Cover | Matt Taibbi | Rolling Stone](<a href=“http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/explaining-the-rolling-stone-cover-by-a-boston-native-20130719]Matt”>http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/explaining-the-rolling-stone-cover-by-a-boston-native-20130719)</p>
<p>It’s only condescending when you tell me how to interpret something I’m capable of interpreting for myself. When I tell you it’s not condescending, because I’m just helping you out.</p>
<p>This reminds me of the hubbub over the New Yorker cover with the satirical cartoon of the Obamas. The complaints come from people who don’t know that much about the particular magazine.</p>
<p>Edited to add that I agree with Taibbi 100%.</p>
<p>
I guess thats probably why RS put celebrities on the cover of the issues I mentioned in post #125–so less people would read the serious articles. Were those serious articles just meant to be a footnote of the issue?</p>
<p>Yes. I think you were spot-on with your theory that people think RS is like Tiger Beat.</p>
<p>Is there a law that says RS can only feature entertainment celebrities on its covers? Just curious. </p>
<p>They’ve always had serious-news coverage. They’ve had Obama, Bill Clinton, and John McCain on the cover. You know - to entice people to read the articles about Obama, Clinton and McCain. That’s hardly nefarious.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No. But they didn’t have such good cover photo potential. They knew that with this one, they could get a good cover photo. They personified someone who people want to believe a monster. It’s an amazing feat. They turned him into anybody’s son or brother or cousin or classmate. They showed who he truly is with just a photo. What really scares people about this cover is that he looks harmless. He doesn’t look like bin Laden with the traditional Middle East dress and beard. He doesn’t have a giant X over him or his eyes blacked out. It doesn’t look like a selfie so he doesn’t look vain. He looks NORMAL. That’s what people have a problem with. I mean, to me, he looks like my best friend (with a bit of a tan). He’s attractive and it seems a waste that he got tied up with his brother’s religious nonsense.</p>
<p>Serenity, I’m trying to understand your take on Dzokhar, we all seem to agree that he looks normal, and had a typical life in many ways, which is a valid reason for the photo and the article. To help us realize we aren’t always looking for a Manson or Bin Laden. </p>
<p>But, here’s where I get a little confused, so please help me see your perspective. You also seem to be saying, not only does he look normal, but he actually is just a regular guy who maybe isn’t responsible for what he did, because in your view, it was his brother’s influence. You previously referenced his action as a “mistake” so this is where I have a very different view.</p>