Rolling Stone´s Top Story

And not just pages and pages long top story, with handsome old picture at the cover.
Not sure if anyone noticed but there is a Jay-z story also. Who´s that? His "Ain´t no love in the heart of the city" is a "theme song" for Boston bombings. Jahar himself made it know as such.

I thought if convicted he will get 20 years. Now it just got reduced to 10. Well done defence team.

Major hit to the faces of victims, major.

Hang on I have been following the Boston Bombings, you are referring to the Rolling Stone cover with the almost teen idol looking Jahar on cover yes. Are you saying that if convicted, but trial has even started, that he will only get 10 years, impossible??

That Rolling Stone cover is really kicking up a storm over here.

Many retailers are refusing to carry this issue and I don't blame them.  it's like a slap in the fact to all those victims.

I hope they have dismal sales and Rolling Stone realizes that not EVERYTHING that happens is worth giving it rock star attention.

I suppose if they had put a bloodied picture of the guy as he was being hauled off then it would have sent the message that so many want to send, that you come to America and fuck with us - we will hunt you down and when we're done you won't be pretty.

But to glamorize this jerk with that cover was disgusting.

Yeah I saw that on twitter when the news broke and I felt so sad at first - for many reasons, sad that whoever is behind the eyes of that photo could do so much damage, but felt such anger and sympathy for the victims/families. These idiot fan girls on twitter have been trying to glamourize him and some do see him as some kind of idol, sickening, and now by being on the cover of Rolling Stone it has almost given credibility to that line of thinking. Its a waste of paper and I hope that all the people mean it when they say they will boycott it.

Yes. 10 years. He comes out with a university degree and new name.

Process is on and there is going to be trial. He said "not guilty". Wait till other papers feel the urge how important it is for them and us "to examine the complexities of this issue and gain a more complete understanding of how a tragedy like this happens. "

More handsome cover pictures and positive false stories. If he can keep his looks where his locked up, it will work miracles for him at court. Not to mention every time prosecutors miss a t line or i dot. If nothing above works they can always say that because of all the media hype, he didn´t get a fair trial, but circus.

He already blew kisses. There will be more.

10 year sentence usually means out in 5 years with good behaviour. This was just a slap on the wrist for him.

I dont understand the new name for him when he gets out. Why not let him keep his old name? He made his bed, now let him sleep in it! If the populus hates him for what he did, then this is his cross to bear. People need to be accountable for their actions.

I heard this today and I don´t know what I was. Surprised to say at least. If mothefuchestan stone age had him in the cover it´s a different story(and they probably already had). He is treated like a superstar.  

And some say the Entrainment Industry and media is not responsible for promoting violence.  

Not at all. Stay tuned. Book, movie, what else is coming.

I found this artical. The Rolling stone explains the picture and the reaction to it. I must say it is a very interesting artical and it is true what they say. Terrorist doesn't look like a gangster they look like a nice kid or neighbor next door that makes them so dangerous. Really interesting to read. ALso intersting that the NY times had the same picture at the front in May.
 
 
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/explaining-the-rolling-stone-cover-by-a-boston-native-20130719
 
Explaining the Rolling Stone Cover, by a Boston Native
 
By Matt Taibbi
POSTED: July 19, 2:50 PM ET
 
I grew up in the Boston area, spent my whole early life there. To this day I'm a maniacal fan of Boston sports teams – in fact, I was moved to write this column when (to my great distress) I heard my employers being bashed on the Mut & Merloni show on WEEI, one of Boston's two main sports talk stations, one of the places I turn to not think about the news.
 
I'm from Boston, but I also lived for almost 10 years in Moscow, Russia, where Chechen terrorist attacks were routine and a very real threat to the public on a daily basis. In fact, in the summer of 1999, I missed being blown up in a Chechen bombing of a Moscow subway station by just a few minutes. So I have no love for Chechen terrorists.
 
 
I also have tremendous sympathy and sadness for the victims in Boston of the recent attack, for the whole city in fact. Having spent such a long period of my life in the shadow of Chechen terrorism in Russia, I was mortified when it seemed that that war had arrived in my hometown.
 
Jahar's World: The Making of a Monster
 
I was particularly upset to learn that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev had spent time at UMass-Dartmouth, a place where my friends and I would ride bikes as kids to shoot baskets or play touch football, back when it was called SMU, or Southern Massachusetts University – the school was right next to my home in Westport, Mass. I felt violated when I saw the TV images of the campus on TV after the attacks, and it's still hard for me to accept that Tsarnaev was ever anywhere near that part of the world, which is so special to me.
 
Anyway, I heard about the Rolling Stone cover controversy before I even saw the cover or read the magazine. I have to admit I was initially a little rattled when emailers told me my employers had "done a sexy photo shoot for Tsarnaev" and "posed him like Jim Morrison." I've known the editors of this magazine for over a decade now and didn't believe this could be true, but people get all kinds of surprises in life – you hear about people married for years before they find out the husband has a cache of Nazi paraphernalia in his basement, or the wife was previously a male state trooper from Oklahoma, or something – so I guess you can never really know.
 
Then I actually saw the Tsarnaev cover, and honestly, I was stunned. I think the controversy is very misplaced. Having had a few days to listen to all of the yelling, the basis of all of this criticism seems to come down to two points:
 
• Putting Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on the cover of Rolling Stone automatically glamorizes him, because the cover of Rolling Stone is all by itself a piece of cultural iconography that confers fame and status.
 
• The photo used in the cover makes Tsarnaev out to be too handsome. He's not depicted with a big red X through his face a la Time magazine's treatment of bin Laden, or with his eyes whited out as in Newsweek's depiction of same, or with a big banner headline like "NOW KILL HIS DREAM" like the one employed by The Economist in its bin Laden cover. He is called a "Monster" in the headline, but the word is too subtle and the font used is too small, making this an unacceptably ambiguous depiction of a terrorist.
 
I think, on the whole, the people leveling these criticisms must not read the magazine, which is understandable. It would be beyond unreasonable to expect everyone in the country to be regularly familiar with the articles in Rolling Stone. On the other hand, 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, from Hunter S. Thompson to Carl Bernstein to Bill Greider back in the day to Tim Dickinson, Michael Hastings, Mark Boal, Janet Reitman and myself in recent years.
 
One could even go so far as to say that in recent years, when investigative journalism has been so dramatically de-emphasized at the major newspapers and at the big television news networks, Rolling Stone's role as a source of hard-news reporting has been magnified. In other words, we're more than ever a hard news outlet in a business where long-form reporting is becoming more scarce.
 
Not everybody knows this, however, which, again, is understandable. But that's where the confusion comes in. It's extremely common for news outlets to put terrorists and other such villains on the covers of their publications, and this is rarely controversial – the issue is how it's done.
 
If the Rolling Stone editors had brought Tsarnaev in to its offices near Rockefeller center, wined and dined him, and then posed him for that Jim Morrison shot, then yes, that would be reprehensible.
 
But that's not what the magazine did. They used an existing photo, one already used by other organizations. The New York Times, in fact, used exactly the same photo on the cover of their May 5 issue.
 
 

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on the cover of The New York Times.Courtesy The New York Times
But there was no backlash against the Times, because everyone knows the Times is a news organization. Not everyone knows that about Rolling Stone. 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.
 
As to the question of why anyone would ever put a terrorist on a cover of a magazine for any reason beyond the opportunity to slash a red X through his face or depict him in crosshairs, there's an explanation for that. Terrorists are a fact of our modern lives and we need to understand them, because understanding is the key to stopping them.
 
But in trying to understand someone like a Tsarnaev, there is a delicate line between empathy and sympathy that any journalist has to be careful not to cross. You cannot understand someone without empathy, but you also have to remember at all times who this person is and what he or she did. I think author Janet Reitman did an excellent job of walking that line, but certainly this kind of approach is going to be inherently troubling to some, because it focuses on the criminal and his motivations and not his victims and their suffering.
 
Which brings us to point No. 2, the idea that the cover photo showed Tsarnaev to be too nice-looking, too much like a sweet little boy.
 
I can understand why this might upset some people. But the jarringly non-threatening image of Tsarnaev is exactly the point of the whole story. If any of those who are up in arms about this cover had read Janet's piece, they would see that the lesson of this story is 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.
 
Thus the cover picture is not intended to glamorize Tsarnaev. Just the opposite, I believe it's supposed to frighten. It's Tsarnaev's very normalcy and niceness that is the most monstrous and terrifying thing about him. The story Janet wrote about the modern terrorist is that you can't see him coming. He's not walking down the street with a scary beard and a red X through his face. He looks just like any other kid.
 
I expect there will be boycotts, but I wonder about the media figures calling for them. Did they seek to boycott Time after its "Face of Buddhist Terror" cover? How about Newsweek after its "Children of bin Laden" cover?
 
 

"The Children of Bin Laden" cover of Newsweek Magazine; The Face of Buddhist Terror cover of Time Magazine. Courtesy Newsweek Magazine; CourtesyTime Magazine
Or the New York Times after it used exactly the same photo of Tsarnaev? What about all those times that people like Khomeini and Stalin made it to Time's "Man of the Year" cover? On the other hand, there will be critics who will say that Rolling Stone is making money off the despair of the Boston victims, and they will be right. But this will also be true of every media outlet that covered the story. (It's even true of the outlets whose pundits are chewing up airtime bashing this magazine this week). That aspect of journalism is always particularly hard to defend, so I won't try.
 
However, it's been suggested, by (among others) Boston Mayor Tom Menino, that Rolling Stone expected this controversy and planned to use the image and the notoriety as a way to gain free publicity. I can't speak for everyone at the magazine, but my belief is that this is not true in the slightest – I know people in the office this week are actually in shock and very freaked out. They didn't expect this at all.
 
It's impossible to become too self-righteous in the defense of something like a magazine when the bottom line of this story is, has been, and always will be that people were cruelly murdered or mutilated through Tsarnaev's horrible act. That truth supercedes all others and always will.  So this is a defense of Rolling Stone that I'm not shouting at the top of my voice. What happens to the magazine and its reputation is really of little consequence in the grand scheme of things. But I do think this has mainly been a misunderstanding, one that hopefully will be cleared up in time.
 
 
 
Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/explaining-the-rolling-stone-cover-by-a-boston-native-20130719#ixzz2ZWppBhI0
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook

Picture from the NY times cover with the same pic you can find in the link above

The NY times also?

Dear readers,

We, here at The NY Times, live in different time zone.
Because we care, please, switch your clocks back.
Let´s say 2000 years.
To get the most of our current issues.

Yours sincerely,
chief editor
The NY Times

Sales double for Rolling Stone bomb suspect cover.

"The trade publication said more than 13,000 copies of the magazine were sold at more than 1,400 retailers from July 19 to July 29. That is more than double the magazine's average sales for the previous year, Adweek said."

Nice.

Nice?
So What will be next one?

Cover you mean?

Could be Clooney

He was on the November 2011 cover.

He was? I didn´t know that. Could and should be again. We need good guys too.

I meant which scandal ahead? They can't live by that

Scandal? I don´t know but maybe face gallery of pedophiles. People would know how they look like, that would be good. Not sure if it sells.

Carla97 wrote:He was? I didn´t know that. Could and should be again. We need good guys too.

It's right here: http://www.clooneysopenhouse.com/t1319-rolling-stone-interview-november-2011

Yes!
Every interview to him is welcome!

Thank you for the link.

Rolling Stone isn't really a "exploit the scandal of the week" type of publication. While their bread and butter is rock stars and music reviews, they do engage in excellent investigative journalism, the kind we rarely see anymore. I live an hour south of Boston. I worked in a school along the marathon route for years; we took the kids out to cheer on the runners every year. I was initially disturbed by the idea that they might be glamorizing Tsarnaev. Once I saw it and understood the idea behind it, that the old notion of 'the bad guys wear black hats' doesn't exist anymore, that the bad guy looks like any other teenage kid on the street, I got it. It's an excellent article, by the way.

Agree Missa, I found it great from the Rolling Stone that they did it. And they explained themselves well why they did it. Time changed and the bad guys look like the good guys. That's our world today.

Sorry girls I have to disagree with you on this one.

The cover and article had nothing to do with investigative journalism. All has been online and in news already. Nothing new there.

On a contrary it lacked all the main issues contributing to what happened and what has happened after the capture of the cover face.

The article served no other purpose than sell that particular issue more than any other. And it succeeded in it. Well done.

It would not bother me if it was neutral and didn´t support the muslims and the bomber. But unfortunately it did. They were celebrating in many places in Europe when the issue came out. On the streets, I even saw, in a place I thought you could never see such thing. Scary.

Well I think the point they wanted to make was to show that terrorist don't look like anymore Bin Laden or such people with a beart. They look like a normal guy next door. That was the purpose of that magazine and it worked.

The artical didn't support the bombers. At the end you will always see those terrorist celebrating in streets as they do always find a purpose or propaganda.

What´s wrong with how Bin laden looked like? I know he was not exactly like this guy http://www.emirates247.com/news/emirates/meet-emirati-expelled-from-saudi-for-being-handsome-2013-04-28-1.504308 but not dead ugly either, no?

Terrorists were not celebrating here they were all muslim women and their kids.

I don´t know who lives next door to anybody, but Tsarnaev looks like Caucasian man, which he is. I would never think he is native american.

Maybe you got me wrong.

It is not about the look like who looks handsome and who not. The cover from the Rolling Stone just showed the modern kind of terrorist. that's all

I think it´s about the look. If he looked ugly I don´t think he would have been in that cover.

If this happened in Pakistan, Afganistan, Egypt, Gaza (where it happens often) he would not be in the cover, no matter how handsome and young.

Modern kind of terrorist? When did this modern era start? Nothing modern about it as far as I see. Bombers twitter account doest´t do it. His mothers Ipad doesn´t do it. Nothing modern about this bombing. Unfortunately nothing modern or more advanced in medicine, people lost lives, limbs, legs ambutated...

Rollingstone´s article lacked sensitivity and was really gross.

Exactly, that's what I mean if he would have looked ugly he wouldn't on the cover but he didn't he looked cute like a teenager next door. That's why he was on the cover. That's what I meant with modern.

An yes if it would have happened in Pakistan, Afganistan, Egypt, Gaza he would not be on the cover. But it happened in America and he looked like a regular cute teenager that's why he was on that cover.

But it is ok if you don't agree with the artical. There will be always different opinions about it. At least people speak about.  So it worked 

I´m sure they are different opinions about it.

I don´t actually speak about it bec the article.

I had American boyfriend (now professor at one of the top Universities in US). He does marathons, everywhere, many continents. So I was worried he was in Boston. And he was. His girlfriend was there too with their newborn baby.

He called me when it happened.

He has a friend among the injured, badly.