America is outraged, positively beside itself with disgust, because Rolling Stone had the audacity to stick a photo of accused Boston Marathon bomber Dzhohkar Tsarnaev on its cover, in connection with an article that explores how a popular and promising young man became a terrorist. People are threatening to boycott stores they probably never frequent unless those businesses refuse to carry a magazine they probably never read. One guy is even urging folks to buy the magazine so they can burn it, like that's going to hurt Rolling Stone's bottom line. Where's Ray Bradbury when we need him?
As a Facebook friend of mine put it yesterday, “the image belies the words, and it's the image most people are reacting to and will remember. He's presented as some sort of post-modern rock god, Jim Morrison with explosives and chin fuzz.”
Perhaps. What I see in that photo is a seemingly detached and calculating young man whose blank look suggests he is devoid of empathy. Obviously others disagree. In any case, the story's about Tsarnaev so the cover features a photo of him. That's standard journalistic practice, folks. Maybe the magazine's art director should have tried a little harder to scare up a photo of Tsarnaev that shows the horns he's hiding under those curly locks.
What I find troublesome in all this is the venomous reaction to the cover from people who feel compelled to condemn whatever irritates them, without so much as a moment’s reflection. Thanks to the fact that the Internet allows us to mouth off instantly and anonymously, restraint has gone out the window, leaving us with arguments like these.
The cover glorifies Tsarnaev. Huh? The headline describes him as a “bomber” and the subhead labels him a “monster.” Where’s the glorification? Should we assume that everyone is illiterate these days, so all that really matters is the picture? Other news organizations have used this photo without being heaped with scorn. Why the selective outrage?
Tsarnaev is a terrorist. End of story. Have we lost all curiosity? Do we not want to know how a smart, American-educated kid who was well-liked by his peers could have gone so horribly wrong?
This shouldn't be on newsstands because it's offensive. Really? To whom? Who appointed these would-be censors to decide what I can and cannot buy? Do we still believe in freedom of speech and freedom of the press in this country, or are they as passé as privacy? I see mags for sale that I find offensive, but I don't claim to have the right to deny other people access to them.
Rolling Stone is just being provocative. Thanks to cable television and the Internet, many Americans have no understanding of what journalism, is, or should be. They have come to see it as some sort of twisted melding of Entertainment Tonight, talking heads on cable “news” shows, propaganda posted on Facebook by special-interest groups, and tweets that tackle every issue in 140 characters or less. So when a magazine does its job by seeking the roots of a horrific crime with a cover story that tries to dissect the birth of a despicable criminal, people react with cynicism and disbelief.
Rolling Stone is in it for the buck. This is one of my favorites, because it shows an abysmal ignorance of how the news business works. Yes, Rolling Stone is trying to make money. It's a business in a capitalistic society. But no, making money is not what gets reporters and editors to crawl out of bed in the morning. Corporate execs and writers may work for the same outfit, but I can assure you, as a former newspaper reporter, that bean counters and journalists have very different motives and priorities.
This is crap, so I won't read it. How do you know it's crap if you don't read it?
Bad guys should not grace the covers of prominent publications. As another Facebook friend posted yesterday: “Didn't Time magazine put Hitler on its cover back in the 1930s? Wasn't bin Laden on magazine covers? Charles Manson? I will boycott the stores that refuse to carry this issue of RS. It's the height of stupidity to be outraged by a magazine featuring a story on this guy and how he became a killer.”
I haven’t read the Rolling Stone story yet, so I don’t know if the magazine succeeded in explaining how Tsarnaev “fell into radical Islam and became a monster,” as the cover puts it. But I’ll give Rolling Stone credit for at least trying to answer a question all of us should be asking. And I’ll wait until I’ve read the damn thing before I grab a pitchfork and firebrand to charge the castle.
No comments:
Post a Comment