Opinion: Bomber on Rolling Stone

I had a long discussion with my mother last night about the Rolling Stone cover featuring Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, also known as the suspect in the Boston bombing. While I've never intended this blog to get political, I had intended on sharing my opinions, which sometimes involve controversial topics. In this blog post, I want to talk about why I support Rolling Stone in putting Tsarnaev on the cover this week. I know, it's not the popular opinion at the moment, and while I don't condone "glorifying" anyone who attacks someone, much less an entire country, I don't think Rolling Stone putting him on the cover is in anyway "glorifying" him more than he's "glorified" on the news, in newspapers, etc.

After the bombing Tsarnaev was featured on every news outlet. News programs sat at roundtables discussing him. How is Rolling Stone putting him on the cover any different? Sure, Rolling Stone is a magazine created purely for entertainment, but isn't any other magazine the same? Time and Newsweek may have been created to deliver news, but Rolling Stone has been a news outlet as well. They've featured politicians, news anchors, etc. Why is featuring him on the cover so taboo, when the article isn't glorifying him, but doing what most people won't do; attempting to understand him and why he did what he did?

The Charles Mason cover

First of all, he doesn't look like a "rockstar," in fact, initially I thought it was Charles Manson, similar to the cover featured in 1970 that won the magazine a National Magazine Award. And Manson only talked to Rolling Stone because he wanted his album plugged. His album? He released an album, that people bought. He was "glorified" and he created a brutal cult.

I'm sure that in Tsarnaev's case, he partially created this attack because he wanted the press. Good or bad, his name is being talked about in households, on the news, etc. The Rolling Stone cover is no different than the press he gets on CNN, to him anyway.

In the end, we've made him a a celebrity and the Rolling Stone cover isn't going to change that or further that idea. In fact, I plan on buying this issue of Rolling Stone so I can read the article. Now that his attack has been done, we've mourned the horror, crucified (which we should) him and his brother for their doing, it's time to learn about him and why he did it.

He's not the first person to attack America and he certainly won't be the last. I'm sure there were signs within his personality, and learning about him, learning about why he did it, will help us understand, and hopefully prevent someone from doing the same thing in the future.

Rolling Stone may be an entertainment magazine, but isn't the news a form of entertainment as well? I'm not condoning Rolling Stone for giving him press, but I'm saying the news outlets that create a roundtable to talk about the cover aren't much different than Rolling Stone. Any press we give him is fueling the fire, the best thing we can do is stop talking about him and I doubt that'll happen anytime soon. With that, I support Rolling Stone in creating this magazine.

Side note: Sorry this was all over the place, I struggled writing this because I was nervous of the reaction. 

x