<p>Serenity, I see your point about the family not being the guilty ones, so I suppose I can see the empathy there. We’re in full agreement then. </p>
<p>
Your statement, “The religion is notorious for ‘honor killings’” just seemed to imply that Islam is responsible for honor killings. </p>
<p>Relax. This is an open thread, people are going to post opposing opinions, and may disagree with you. No need to get so defensive.</p>
<p>here I thought Serenity was saying the family had influenced Dzokhar? maybe I misunderstood.</p>
<p>
We can see regret? He had regard for human life? Really?</p>
<p>Yes, I asked this question pages back. Where did he demonstrate remorse that you mention. </p>
<p>I think seeing him as “less” guilty than his brother and/or “normal” looking has possibly influenced a perception of innocence.</p>
<p>The reports that he cried for two days in the hospital make it seem like he knew he screwed up. At least to me.</p>
<p>that is a huge assumptive leap to believe that means he has remorse. his tears may have simply been for himself. perhaps he was in pain at that point. who knows. but what an assumption.</p>
<p>his life as he knew it is over, his brother is dead. (he ran him over) we have zero evidence of him expressing any remorse for killing innocent victims, including an 8 yr old child.</p>
<p>The crying could be because he screwed up and (1) got caught, and (2) got his brother killed.
On the other hand, the fact that he has not expressed remorse does not necessarily mean much. Other than the initial interrogation, he has not expressed anything(AFAIK), on advice of counsel.</p>
<p>So your objection to the RS picture is that he hasn’t shown remorse? So if he had/did, you’d be ok with the picture? Somehow I doubt it.</p>
<p>I would prefer it if he feels and shows remorse. I don’t understand why some people seem to prefer otherwise. Whether his crying shows remorse, I can’t say.</p>
<p>Whenever something like this happens, we all have a natural defense mechanism, which enables us to think that this couldn’t possibly happen to us or our loved ones. This guy is somehow fundamentally different from us–he’s an inhuman monster, or a religious fanatic, or a deranged lunatic. Whether you prefer to think he’s evil or crazy may depend on your general outlook, but in either case, it helps us to feel that he’s different from us. I think this particular case is more troubling than others because the younger brother just doesn’t seem that different from us. Perhaps that’s one reason some people have such a visceral reaction to the RS cover–we don’t like to be reminded that he doesn’t seem that different from us–or from kids we know.</p>
<p>Exactly. He doesn’t “look weird” like Jarad Loughner does.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The may be true for some people, but it certainly isn’t for me. Nor have any of the other attempts at psychoanalysis stated by various posters here been true for me. </p>
<p>I simply do not want him to have publicity of the type that glorifies him in the eyes of potential copycats, and IMNSHO that is what that cover does.</p>
<p>Snowdog in post 150 says that he would feel differently if the cover picture had been more akin to the Manson cover, the only thing on the cover, no additional mentions / blurbs about JayZ or other celebrities on the cover page. Do you share that view, Consolation? </p>
<p>IYO, what newspapers /magazines can run a Tsarnaev story without providing undue publicity, and which ones cross the line? I’m interested in the answer to what I posted upthread re Vanity Fair, Esquire, the New Yorker, the Atlantic. Genuinely interested in your opinion, not challenging.</p>
<p>I understand that the RS cover could be perceived to be glorifying him, and encouraging people to see him as the cute bad boy, but, at the same time, I’m tired of the media being so black and white. The “he’s a normal hottie” reaction to the RS cover (and in general) shows a much deeper problem with the people who think that way more than it does with the cover itself. This is what happens when the media always makes things so black and white, so “us vs. them.” People start subtly getting influenced by the idea that it’s a bigger deal when an Arab with a long beard and a turban murders then when an average looking American murders. Murder is murder.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The end result to the victim is the same. But murder done in the name of religion is very different from murder done by a gang in a turf war from the standpoint of what needs to be done to prevent further occurrences.</p>
<p>Dad<em>of</em>3 Is it really that different? Religious extremists and a gang?</p>
<p>I’d say the difference between religious extremists and a gang is there are more of the former. And you can’t identify which ones. These guys were Chechens welcomed in the US. Nidal Hasan was an army Major, a psychiatrist. Yes, you could look at them and maybe you’d identify issues - certainly with Hasan - but if we identified all non-Muslims with “issues” we’d run out of people pretty fast. </p>
<p>You can enforce laws against gangs - put in curfews, arrest them for petty offenses, put people in jail - because they are criminal organizations. You can’t do that with a religion. Not unless you emulate Germany.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would agree that it is difficult to satisfy everyone’s curiosity and legitimate desire to understand what causes something like this to happen without tipping over the edge into giving him tabloid celebrity status and undue publicity. Especially since almost all of us have been conditioned by a constant barrage of voyeuristic reality TV, infotainment, People, Entertainment Tonight, and on and on to want to know MORE.</p>
<p>But I think that it is fairly easy to separate the serious journalistic venues out: the NYT, the New Yorker, the Atlantic. All of those are likely to run a story about him, but none are going to be calculated to appeal to doctor’s office/supermarket checkout reading. The reader is expected to want to invest some time and thought, not just scan the juicy details. The New Yorker, as we know, never runs photos on the cover. When the Times ran the picture of Jahar on the front page, it was presented in what one might call a documentary fashion: the whole photo, uncropped, no emphasis added. (Please note that I am not saying that the photo, treating that way, would make a “good” or effective magazine cover. But that is kind of the point, isn’t it?)</p>
<p>IMHO, Vanity Fair and Esquire, although they do have a history of sometimes containing good journalism, are usually over the edge into the tabloid world. The content of both magazines contain liberal doses of celebrity gossip and fashion, spiced up with lots of photos of scantily-clad celebrities and models. Both of them aim at a higher level of sophistication than supermarket tabloids, but both of them appeal to the same impulse. They just dress it up in a way that attempts to make it socially acceptable to subscribe to the person who wouldn’t be caught dead buying a tabloid.</p>
<p>BTW, I’ve read Reitman’s article, and I’ve read some of her other work. Her specialty in this kind of piece seems to be hanging out with drunk/stoned adolescents and young adults and getting them to say the kind of stuff she can use as hot quotes. It would appear to me that she never has to submit any of the assertions in these pieces to fact-checking, because she is presenting whatever is said as a direct quote from someone. If they are mistaken or exaggerating, well, that’s not HER fault, is it? It is a very convenient style for a yellow journalist who thrives on the sexy scandal piece. As I said above, I read her piece and I listened to/watched a lot of coverage in the days right after it happened. (I was immobilized with some physical ailments right then.) Everything in her piece came out then: he was a nice kid, everyone loved him, he was an amiable stoner, his teachers and other adults and friends couldn’t believe it was him, the whole family story in great detail, his brother’s story in greater detail than she presented it, and so forth. I think that only the “leakage” bit was new. What she did was hang out with his friends and get direct quotes, plus put together all of the other info that had already been dug up by reporters. So I really don’t see this as some incredibly thoughtful, ground-breaking view into the mind of Jahar for which RS should expect to garner big journalistic kudos. It was a retread with her signature hangin-with-the-kids schtick.</p>
<p>Here’s a link to coverage in The Atlantic onlline on April 19th:</p>
<p>[The</a> Boston Bombers Were Muslim: So? - Megan Garber - The Atlantic](<a href=“The Boston Bombers Were Muslim: So? - The Atlantic”>The Boston Bombers Were Muslim: So? - The Atlantic)</p>
<p>
I tend to be much more disgusted with religious extremists then gangs, because religious extremists act like what they’re doing is justified and right when they’re just lying to themselves to make excuses. Gangs are horrible, but they don’t invoke the name of something beautiful (beautiful in my perception, anyways) to do something horrible.</p>
<p>
I would guess that there are more of the latter.</p>
<p>
Of course you can. We punish religious extremists, we put them in jail.</p>
<p>Thanks for your thoughtful response, Consolation.</p>
<p>agree, insightful post Consolation. I completely agree with your perspective…</p>
<p>I also think that because someone physically looks “normal” and/or “attractive” and has a fairly typical lifestyle, does not automatically mean that in fact that is all there is. We do not know the inner workings of Dzokhar’s motivations, beliefs, possible hatred of others. This would not come out in his day to day campus activities, as his fellow students stated, he never talked about his family. We always hear that people are shocked and can’t believe this person would do such a thing. I don’t think it makes sense psychologically, to say that Dzokhar was like most other college students, but then simply participated in a planned killing of innocents. For him to have placed the bomb(s), then gone on to kill the police officer demonstrates he has a depraved indifference to human life. This is not typical, this is not normal. No it’s not because I can’t accept how this can happen to anyone. This is a deviant, antisocial act committed by someone who was apparently quite good at “fitting in” and appearing to be a regular college kid.</p>