Ignore The Cover, Read The Article

Rolling Stone has plunged deep into the pool of media generated controversy this week with their decision to publish a 10-11k piece on the Boston Bomber and put his face on their cover.   Needless to say, people are massively, massively pissed off about this.  Major retailers (including Hy-Vee around these parts- but CVS as well) have refused to sell the issue of the magazine citing the public outcry over the Bomber's place on the cover.

Personally, I think you could probably make a small fortune from being a media critic these days and there's plenty to be critical about.  (CNN is running the umpteenth hour of coverage of a trial that's already concluded and then there's this cover debacle and oodles more to get into.)  But here's the thing:  the article is worth reading.  It's obviously well-researched, well-written and a decent attempt (if such a thing is possible) to get some insight into what made, by all accounts a promising young man become a terrorist.

The cover, however, is a dick move to me.   First of all, to me, Rolling Stone should well, be about music.  I get that they have a history of political coverage and other pieces but the primary focus- the cover should be something about music, to me.  Maybe that's way off base- I don't subscribe to Rolling Stone anymore (nor am I likely too again after this) but it seems like an appropriate point to make.

Second of all:  sexing him up?  Seriously?  The curly hair, the dark, brooding eyes--  this guy hs a growing fan club of loons already- why give them more ammo?  Why win him more converts?   It's reminscent of their famous shot of Jim Morrison- except that Morrison just whipped out his trouser snake in Miami- he didn't blow anybody up.  So, I disagree with that.  The soft lines, the hint of angelic whatever...  it's disgusting.  If they wanted to use a picture of him on the cover, they should have used his mug shot.

Third of all:  deliberately generating controversy doesn't impress me.  It doesn't impress me when the media spins bullshit about the trial* that just concluded in Florida and it doesn't impress me when Rolling Stone does it here.  You know someone, somewhere knew this was going to cause a shitstorm to end all shitstorm and they knew that it would sell magazines (mainly on the principle that if you tell people something's controversial, there's going to be a stampede of people wanting to figure out what it is and if it's worth all the hype) but they did it anyway.  I know, I know, real journalists have to make money like the rest of us and I should pull my head out of my ass and not pretend like this is some pie-in-the-sky-wouldn't-it-be-awesome-if-they-were-all-like-Jeff-Daniels-in-The-Newsroom world but it still strikes me as fundamentally uncool and, as I said, a dick move.

I wouldn't buy this issue if somebody paid me too (cover being a dick move and all) but I have to admit that the article is well worth reading.   To paraphrase in Reddit speak:  TL;DR  Ignore the cover, read the article

*I tweeted briefly after the conclusion of the Trial in Florida and I swore point blank I wasn't going to blog a damn thing about it.   It's the Trial That Shall Not Be Named.