Rolling Stone Controversy

Alexa T.Dosreis

6-16-2013

Journalism

Period F

The Rolling Stone Controversy: Journalistic Perspective

 

            In times as sensitive as these, America becomes immune to violence. In fact writers and reporters have begun to glamorize the bad. When it comes to the issues on race religion, the people are not being told the whole truth for fear of being politically incorrect. However more than enough people had expressed their discontent with the unexpected Rolling Stone magazine cover of “The Bomber”. The publication of the original Rolling Stone cover and article on “The Bomber” evaluates the course of action taken by the nineteen year old college student “Jahar” making him out to be a victim with “soulful brown eyes” rather than the monster he really is.

            The people of Boston were particularly critical:  “Boston Magazine responded to Rolling Stone’s editorial decision with one of its own, publishing photos of the manhunt/taken by Sgt. Sean Murphy, a photographer/ was described as “furious” about the Rolling Stone cover and accused the magazine of “glamourizing the face of terror.”(Behind Rolling Stone’s Cover, a Story Worth Reading, by David Carr). The graphic photos of the roughed up Mr. Tsarnaev ended up creating a controversy of its own and Sgt. Sean Murphy was relieved of his just hours after turning over the pictures to the magazine. Along with that the caption of the Rolling Stone article: “He was a charming kid with a bright future. But no one saw the pain he was hiding or the monster he’d become”, does not correspond to what was actually written about him in the article.  In the original article there is a strong bias that works in his favor. All the people referenced had personal relationships with Jahar. He isn’t depicted as a monster at all. On the contrary is shocking: “How Rolling Stone can even think about turning an alleged murderer into a rock star by plastering his “soulful brown eyes” on the front page/ thoughtful coverage of the most important political and cultural issues of our days.” (Decision to glorify bomber is what’s truly heartbreaking, by Carmen Rasmusen Herbert). This was simply outrageous to this journalist. It was stated in the Rolling Stone article that he was a troubled young man whose past simply failed him. See this is where a little bit of truth needs to be shoved into the mix of opinions. America today seems to have a problem with the truth, and the truth is that Jahar had converted to the Muslim faith. Jahar stated to his friend that: “the U.S. government is killing our innocent civilians” he wrote, presumably to Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan. “I can’t stand to see such evil go unpunished…..We Muslims are one body, you hurt one, you hurt us all/ Fuck America.”(Rolling Stone by Janet Reitman).   We call the Koran (Muslim Bible) a peaceful religion, but the truth is the Koran says women have no rights, little girls are sold for money, and they hold no value and are killed every day for nothing. Radical Muslims bomb their own people in Iraq so that they stay in constant fear of them and not side with the Americans out of fear of being killed. If we cannot learn this how can we understand what he did and possibly why he did it?.  This leaves no doubt to where his loyalties are. Russia had even informed and warned America twice about him. Why was that question not answered in the article?

            The Boston Bomber’s story is not tragic and does not deserve to be told as thoughtfully as Rolling Stone had done.  It deserves an article, but not the cover. If an article is going to be written about him the whole story needs to be told, the truth of it all.   The publication of the original Rolling Stone cover and article on “The Bomber” was bias and never hinted at a tone of anger towards the tragedy; it was more like remorse for the murder with the “soulful brown eyes” who killed innocent civilians , fully knowledgeable of the consequence that were to follow.