Sam Whitehorn Comp 2 Harris

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is considered a terrorist. It isnt uncommon for perpetrators of mass destruction and murder to be plastered on periodicals across the United States. What is uncommon is when the cover suggests dark sexuality in place of catatonic sadism. The cover of Rolling Stone magazine is a much heralded locale for any aspiring artist and has been culturally relevant since its birth. It is a spot where declarations in fashion, music, and even politics have found their beginnings. All this begs the question as to why Rolling Stone would place an assumed terrorist so suggestively on its front page, on every newsstand in every city, in a time when terrorism and its implications garner coverage both politically and culturally. The most common reason given for Rolling Stones controversial depiction is that it is an attempt to bump issue sales. It is no secret that the Age of Information has donned. Magazines and newspaper are almost universally down in sales. Blogs and twitter posts are more immediately accessible, evidenced by Rolling Stones own foray into the online news phenomenon. At first glance, the reasoning behind their cover seems simple; money. But is it something more? Could the reason be something more admirable? Maybe it is because the photo serves as a cultural cautionary tale on how quickly a terrorist can take shape. There is also the possibility that the magazine, known for its liberal leanings, is out to make a political statement. Other than the cultural and political implications of such a cover, I am interested in the question because of the role Rolling Stone and terrorism have played in my life. My sister has dreams of writing for the magazine, so a measured and salient editorial staff is desirable. Terrorism became a buzz-word following

the September 11th attacks. I was in the 6th grade at the time, so our countrys response to terror served as the background through much of my formative years. The actual article should have its say first in any attack on its credibility. In the same way Reza Aslan deserves to have his book read before hes ostracized by scholars and labeled a bigot by national media, the Rolling Stone article must be read and analyzed to avoid being mislabeled or nitpicked biasedly. The story is prefaced with a note from the editors of the magazine. It references Rolling Stones history and the similarity of Tsarnaevs age to its audience in an effort to legitimize themselves. The pathos evinced is also immediately apparent; sending their hearts out to victims of the Boston Marathon Bombing in the opening line. This effort to justify the writing before it even begins belies a sense of the importance of the cover and the stir the picture is sure to cause. Feigned ignorance of its impact, though always an incompetent excuse, can be ruled out entirely. The author focuses on the reaction of Tsarnaevs teachers and classmates to the news of his involvement. His is referred to as the more easily pronounced Jahar by almost everyone from his school past. One friend even asks why he would choose to go by the shorter Jahar rather than his birth name if he hated his life in America. The story is well written and evokes the cultural caution interpretation of the article. However, more sources and angles are needed to fully investigate my questions. The claim that magazine sales have declined in the recent years is one that necessarily must be validated. I accomplished this by reading the State of the News Media 2013: An Annual Report on American Journalism. My suspicions were proven accurate, though this issue only had data on circulation up to 2012. Each year shown in their data experienced a drop in numbers. Although 2011 increased less of a drop than in previous years, the trend was still apparent. This would lead me to believe that Rolling Stone was conscious of the slipping profits of periodicals. This doesnt necessarily

incriminate the editors of using Tsarnaev for profit, it merely states that the motivation to do so was present. Another angle worth investigating is the reaction from the people most directly affected by the attack in Boston. Bostonians in particular had a vitriolic response to the magazines perceived indiscretion and callousness in publishing the photo. This was easy to gather after reading the July 17th issue of the Boston Herald. Boston mayor Thomas Menino wrote in a letter to Rolling Stone founder Jann Wenner, The survivors of the Boston attacks deserve Rolling Stone cover stories though I no longer feel that Rolling Stone deserves them. Boston Police Commissioner Edward Davis held a similar, if less restrained, sentiment of the cover. Im disgusted by it. They should have given the victims more consideration. The Boston Herald article goes on to list the numerous convenience stores devoting a boycott to the magazine. Among those listed are Stop & Shop and CVS. I mention this to spotlight the potential backlash when a news publication chooses to stimulate the population via incendiary coverage, whether their reasoning is noble or base. Meninos open letter to Rolling Stone reads like a stunted reprimand, emblazoned in official City of Boston letterhead. It is short and sharp. It also acknowledges that the entire story was at the time unknown. This also points to the initial rage and importance the provocative glam shot caused. Having only seen the cover, the mayor of Boston felt the urge to respond in a heartfelt letter. The Boston attack still feels fresh in the letter, the pain still present in the minds of all the Bostonians who were there during the attack, and are still caught reeling in the aftermath. Also called to mind by the timing of the later is the aforementioned cultural importance of the cover of Rolling Stone magazine. Prompting a mayor to respond sternly in a matter of days shows the circulation that he expected the magazine to receive. You would also think that politically-minded individuals would want to show their response to

potentially mass offenses in a strong and immediate way. He showed to the Boston people that he was ready to defend them, probably earning future votes. My own cynicism aside, the letter is powerful and well-framed, addressing an important event. The fifth source I chose to include in my report was a defense of the article and cover. The rationalization, entitled Explaining the Rolling Stone Cover, Written by a Boston Native, was authored by Matt Taibbi, a relatively successful blogger. The initial reaction induced by the article is one of credibility, earned by the tag Boston Native. This suggests someone inherently involved and affected by the attacks, as opposed to a fat-fingered, money-grubbing, politics-trumpeting indifferent Rolling Stone executive. This is not to say that these stigmas are indicative of Rolling Stone, but the relevance of having someone less removed from the tragedy is appreciable. Taibbi establishes his credibility early and efficiently in the article. He was wholly involved in the Boston scene, from being raised there to following the citys numerous sports teams. He also lends credence to his words by mentioning his familiarity with Chechen terrorists, the broad label applied to Tsarnaev and his brother. Growing up in Moscow, he become well acquainted with the travesties wrought by terrorists. Almost all potential ridicule based on bias is removed in the first couple of paragraphs in the article. It is well grounded and a reader cant help but take his words as honest and informed. His defense begins with the countrys uninformed perception of Rolling Stone. He argues that the national view of Rolling Stone is that of a pop-culture magazine, inclined to sensationalist imagery and outlandish reporting. To illustrate his point, he demonstrates the lack of response to the New York Times running the same exact photo on their front page. According to Taibbi, the backlash was much less pronounced or altogether nonexistent because the Times is regarded as a news organization, devoted to the truth and not trendy statements.

His second point is that the cover is the exact point of the article; mainly that there are no warning signs for terrorism, that even nice, polite, sweet-looking young kids can end up packing pressure-cookers full of shrapnel and tossing them into crowds of strangers. The defense is excellent and self-aware in a way that the cover maybe wasnt. Taibbi writes that his colleagues were shocked and appalled by the reaction. He also wisely and measuredly says that he isnt shouting his argument, harping back to the radio-shouting that brought about his own awareness to the public scrutiny. He isnt shouting it because what happens to the magazine and its reputation over time is really of little consequence in the grand scheme of things. The sources I gathered for this paper all were gathered in an effort to better answer or at least evaluate prospective arguments in a sort of self-education. The questioned initially put forth was why run the photo? The first and most relevant source is the article itself. It is written much to the point of my fifth source, Taibbis astute write up. The article was conceived as a warning, as a nod to the unpredictability of terrorist attacks. Maybe it is an indictment of the NSA and Patriot Act, programs that serve to cut off potential attacks at their roots, uninhibited by breaches in privacy of United States citizens. The letter penned by Thomas Menino shows the reaction of the United States citizen in a rarely palpable, accessible way. The nation was hurt by the attacks, specifically Boston. The pain was real and so was the backlash aimed at Rolling Stone. This gives us concrete evidence that the vitriol was extensive and immediate. It also underscores the fact that the reaction may have been clouded by its own quickness. The letter is short and acknowledges its own ignorance. The verdict was, in effect, written before the entire story was told. I believe that I am far more educated on the issue of the Tsarnaev cover. I can maybe tell my ambitious sibling that its okay to go forward, though I kind of doubt that she was waiting on my permission.

Works Cited 1. Reitman, Janet. Jahars World. Rolling Stone 17 July 2013: 56-64. Print. 2. Mitchell, Amy. The State of the News Media 2013. An Annual Report on American Journalism. Print. 3. Menino, Thomas. Open Letter to Rolling Stone. 17 July 2013. Print. 4. Szaniszlo, Marie. Mayor, Top Cop Blast Rolling Stone Over Tsarnaev Cover. Boston Herald. 17 July 2013. Print. 5. Taibbi, Matt. Explaining the Rolling Stone Cover, by a Boston Native. Rolling Stone. 19 July 2013.