Everyone is up in arms about the decision by Rolling Stone to put Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on the cover of its upcoming August issue. Everyone. I can’t remember an issue that has dominated my social media feeds this intensely since, I don’t know, feels like something weird happened recently, but trust me, it’s a big deal.
How best to respond though? That’s a question tens of thousands of people are asking themselves right now. Admittedly it’s not an easy one. Here are a few options that seem to be exceedingly popular.
Rolling Stone still exists?
Haha, yup! This one is cool because it shows that you’re above the fray of popular entertainment. Not so above it to comment on it, react to it, and so on, but enough so that it sends a message to your friends that you’re a person of discerning taste.
Boycott Rolling Stone! This is an outrage. How dare they glamorize a murdering terrorist.
This one shows that you are a sensitive person, but also that you don’t understand that sometimes bad people are notable and interesting, and that you probably don’t actually read much. That shouldn’t stop you from voicing your opinion, however. Hey, btw, remember when the New York Times published the same photo on page 1 and we all stopped reading it? Remember when Time had Hitler on the cover and then we never heard from that magazine again? How about Rolling Stone with Charles Manson on the cover? And then, as soon as that happened, everyone became cult-leading murderers.
Putting this guy on the cover of a music magazine? This is an outrage!
Lets the world know that you are both angry, but also unaware that Rolling Stone has always, and still does include, along with some pretty admittedly frivolous music content, at least one typically solid piece of political reporting per issue, often from one of the best political writers going, Matt Taibbi. You should check it out some time.
I refuse to link to this because I don’t want to encourage anyone else to look at it.
That certainly won’t pique anyone’s curiosity, now will it?
I stopped reading it when they put [Justin Bieber, Snookie, etc] on the cover anyway.
Quick and easy way to let people know you have a sense of humor. Not an original one, mind you, but a sense of humor anyway.
Granting murderers the type of adulation usually reserved for pop stars sends the wrong message to children, and encourages would-be terrorists in the future.
How many deaths you figure former Rolling Stone cover boys Barack Obama and George W. Bush are good for?
I don’t like that they put him on the cover, but it’s free speech, you can’t stop them from doing it.
Succinct way to let people know that you still, somehow, after all this time, don’t know what freedom of speech actually provides for.
He looks like one of The Strokes
Whatever you think of the decision, they certainly got what they after: We’re all talking about it now.
Rolling Stone? More like Trolling Stone.
Haha, good one buddy.
Why didn’t they put one of the victims on the cover?
Because, for better or worse, plotting to bomb a huge event, then carrying it out, and captivating the country while you’re on the run, especially when you were a seemingly normal kid up until very recently, as the article appears like it’s going to look into, is a story. People die every day, often in horrible circumstances. I wish they didn’t, but they do. This, this is something else.