The Boston Marathon Bomber: How Rolling Stone magazine turned a terrorist into a rock star

A runner reacts near Kenmore Square after two bombs exploded during the 117th Boston Marathon on April 15, 2013 in Boston, Massachusetts. (Getty Images)

Desperately clawing against what has quickly become a public relations nightmare, the editors at Rolling Stone tried to justify their decision in a statement, which explained that the article falls within the traditions of journalism and reflects the publication’s commitment to serious, thoughtful coverage:

“Our hearts go out to the victims of the Boston Marathon bombing, and our thoughts are always with them and their families,” Rolling Stone said. “The cover story we are publishing this week falls within the traditions of journalism and Rolling Stone’s long-standing commitment to serious and thoughtful coverage of the most important political and cultural issues of our day.”

The magazine added that “the fact that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is young, and in the same age group as many of our readers, makes it all the more important for us to examine the complexities of this issue and gain a more complete understanding of how a tragedy like this happens.”

That’s all very well, but the statement only justifies the content of the story, not the need for the glamorous cover photo. The content is not the issue here – it does exactly what the magazine said it was trying to do; examine the complexities of the issue to gain a more complete understanding of how this could have happened to Tsarnaev.

Janet Reitman, the Rolling Stone editor who penned the article, spent two months interviewing Mr. Tsarnaev’s friends and family as the basis for the story. The article itself is thoughtful, provocative, and well worth a read.

But as I said, this isn’t about the article itself. It is about the picture on the front, because despite what the proverb warns, we do judge a book by its cover and especially when it is a magazine cover.

The images that a magazine sends out to the world are more powerful than the words in its pages. They are seen by far more people on shelves in convenience stores and book stores all over the world. And the image that Rolling Stone has put out is out of taste, no matter what words are there to accompany it.

Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick seems to agree:

So why is this cover image out of taste? Because it is on the cover of Rolling Stone. It is that simple.

An image is inseparably linked to the publication on which it is printed. In this case, despite its attempts to produce hard hitting, serious content, Rolling Stone is still essentially a glamour and entertainment magazine.

It is a magazine known the world over for being edgy, sexy and cool, and its cover page is sacred ground for the most famous, idolised and celebrated musicians, actors and models in American pop culture. Granting that privilege to a suspected terrorist, who happens to be one of the most hated men in America at the moment, is clearly one of the worst decisions Rolling Stone has ever made.

Rolling Stone writer Matt Taibbi doesn’t seem to understand this point. In providing his reasons for why he thinks this controversy has been overstated, the Boston native said that the only reason people are upset is because they don’t realise that the Rolling Stone magazine actually reports on serious news matters. He takes the example of the New York Times, which published the exact same picture of Tsarnaev on its front page a few weeks ago, and points out that there was no controversy there because the New York Times is so obviously a serious news publication. He wrote:

“…pretty much everyone has heard of Rolling Stone, which is where the problem lay, in this gap between the popular image of the magazine and the reality of its reporting.

If indeed we were just a celebrity/gossip mag that covered nothing but rock stars and pop-culture icons, and we decided to boost sales and dabble in hard news by way of putting a Jim Morrison-esque depiction of a mass murderer on our cover, that really would suck and we would deserve all of this criticism. But Rolling Stone has actually been in the hard news/investigative reporting business since its inception…

…So that’s your entire controversy right there – it’s OK for the Times, not OK for Rolling Stone, because many people out there understandably do not know that Rolling Stone is also a hard-news publication.”

Gov. Patrick says content of Rolling Stone article doesn’t seem objectionable, but cover is out of taste #fox25

— Catherine Parrotta (@CParrottaFox25) July 17, 2013