Balanced Thinking About The Rolling Stone Cover From Marc Randazza
Smart, nuanced view that counterbalances all the hysterics from a blog post by Randazza. An excerpt:
I think the problem that some people have with the cover is that it has a tendency to humanize Tsarnev. On that cover, you see him as "normal." Meanwhile, we prefer to see villains as one-dimensional. It is just so comforting to look at someone who did something horrible, and say "I could not even see myself hanging out with this guy, he's just not like us."It makes it easier to deal with if we can look at this guy and say "he's a monster." There, the end. No texture. No substance to our analysis. We are good. He is bad. The end.
...Mayor Menino's call for stories about the victims, and "honoring" them, instead, completely misses the point. Focusing on the dead teaches us nothing. Focusing even on the heroes of that day, unfortunately, teaches us nothing. We already think about that. We already understand that. Hoisting the cops and firemen on our shoulders and mourning the dead does nothing for us.
Learning about the bad guy does. It really does.
The Tsarnevs lose if we are better after what they did. They win even more if we turn this into yet another victim contest and further dumbing down of what is left of real journalism.
You're a citizen in the remnants of a democratic society. You have a responsibility to be smarter every day. Decrying Rolling Stone for trying to help you do that is not the right thing to do. Pressuring stores to take journalism off of their racks because you think you're supposed to be offended, that's not the right thing to do. Sending a warning shot across the bow of every newspaper and magazine with your outcry? You're part of why American journalism is racing toward shlock and celebrity worship every day, and away from Edward R. Murrow.
I don't really have an objection to him on the cover. (Even though the Rolling Stone is preeminently a current entertainment trends magazine.)
But at the same time the title/subtitle is:
I'm going to just pull stats out of my ass for this one.
There are about 310M people in the U.S. Say 10% come from single, deprived or otherwise broken homes so that is about 31M. Then say that 1% of the 31M turn to Islam for solace. That would be about 310K Muslims. Out of those 310K how many have blown up shit maliciously?
Blaming his circumstances for turning him into a Radical Muslim is no more valid than the excuses used by McVeigh for the OKC bombing.
That's how I read the cover. If the text was "An evaluation of Tsarnaev as a bomber" it would be a different animal. They are pre-excusing his actions with the cover.
Why not put the Sandy Hook murderer on the cover with a text of "The mental health system failed him so it wasn't his fault"?
Jim P. at July 19, 2013 11:24 PM
I understand why a lot of people are upset. They did pick the nicest picture they could to put on the cover. The one that makes his little fans sure he's innocent, and as somebody said, one they'll be pinning on their bedroom walls.
But it's the editor's right to do so. And looking at an article on some of their other covers, I saw they did the same thing for Charles Manson. He looks quite normal. Rolling Stone is good at pushing buttons, for sure.
I agree about the subtitle. I think our brains take it all in at once, the picture and the subtitle, and the immediate reaction for many is a growl of outrage. (Justified, I feel.)
Unfortunately, all the outrage is accomplishing nothing but to provide publicity for Rolling Stone. Which is why they pull this shit, so people, you may as well just let it go. They don't care.
Pricklypear at July 20, 2013 1:03 AM
This would be fine, say, counterbalanced with one of Bin Laden's brains running across the floor. Because I remember the images of those people jumping from the WTC. We're censoring our victories. Why?
MarkD at July 20, 2013 4:51 AM
Disagree for one reason: Look at the photo. He looks like some beautiful rock star.
Seriously, it's a pin-up shot. Rolling Stone made him look absolutely dreamy. Girls will melt, boys will imitate.
That is a "look" that we'll be seeing a lot more of. Count on it.
And that really is the point.
mark n. at July 20, 2013 7:51 AM
This teaches us and everyone else that you can get on the cover of Rolling Stone by killing people. That's good, right?
ken at July 20, 2013 9:24 AM
Yes, I think I'll bomb the Boston Marathon. I'll rot in solitary confinement for at least a decade, which will end in my execution, but just think! I'll be on the cover of Rolling Stone.
Patrick at July 20, 2013 10:21 AM
My problem with the magazine isn't that it makes him appear human-obviously he seemed very normal to those who knew him. My problem is this: every time the media plasters the faces and names of these killers all over the country, it encourages more of them. Any publicity is good publicity and all that. I'd rather the news posted no pics (unless someone was still at-large), make small mention that _____ had been arrested/convicted/killed/whatever, and then focus on something good that happened. Someone who was brave or selfless or whatever.
I've never bought nor read rolling stone and never would, so my opinion really doesn't matter.
momof4 at July 20, 2013 10:43 AM
People can't take the fact that Evil is often in a good-looking package. They'd rather it be ugly, in line with their prejudice, and easy to recognize. But trouble often comes with curly raven hair and dimples, to which many a man will testify.
Pop culture worships the good-looking people in our midst, often without regard for their moral qualities or talents. (Kim K-need I say more?) I think the RS cover is a blunt object lesson for people who haven't thought that through yet.
bmused at July 20, 2013 11:41 AM
It's a horrible insult to those killed, wounded, or otherwise traumatized in Boston.
I have no problem with Rolling Stone publishing the article, they are one of the few magazines with the chops to still do investigative reporting. However, there is little doubt, if any, that this young man is a coward and murderer, and he does not deserve to be celebritized.
Eric at July 20, 2013 12:11 PM
The cover, from the point of view of art, did its job: generate thought.
However, he is a monster. How else do you describe someone who will indiscriminately murder men women and children, and sleep soundly?
It is good to be reminded that some times beauty masks a black heart.
Over/under on the amount of time left before Rolling Stone gets sold to HuffPo for $1?
I put it at about 5 years.
I R A Darth Aggie at July 20, 2013 2:20 PM
Yes, I think I'll bomb the Boston Marathon. I'll rot in solitary confinement for at least a decade, which will end in my execution, but just think! I'll be on the cover of Rolling Stone.
That's just a bonus.
Of course, your god does not command you to oppress or kill the unbeliever, or to kill the jews and apostates, nor are you commanded to kill teh gheys, and treat women as chattel.
At least so far as I know, you're not a member of the Religion of Peace, and thus not real eager to become a martyr for the cause.
I R A Darth Aggie at July 20, 2013 2:32 PM
They wanted the photo to generate thought and discussion?
Fine. I think Rolling Stone jumped the shark decades ago and is desperate for attention.
Discuss.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at July 20, 2013 2:41 PM
GMCR, that would be a discussion of the bleeding obvious.
Further proof, as if it is needed, that passive voice should be outlawed.
Jeff Guinn at July 20, 2013 6:21 PM
I can't buy into Randazza's idea.
One of the major reasons people commit terrorism and other horrible crimes is to become famous, as individuals or as groups. If we allow it to happen, we encourage more people to do those things.
That has to be the bottom line.
Let horrible criminals, and their names and faces too, be buried forever.
jdgalt at July 21, 2013 2:45 PM
The Rolling Stones aren't making him look young and hot... he IS young and hot. It would be nice if criminals were all grizzled and ugly and easily identified by their pockmarked, misshapen visages, but sadly its not the case.
Apparently, the NYT used the same picture on May 5th, to no outcry.
NicoleK at July 21, 2013 4:10 PM
The NYT is not really considered a trusted source for data and commentary on pop culture and entertainment.
Sometimes context does matter. And the associated headline that he fell into radical Islam. How do you fall into radical Islam?
Jim P. at July 21, 2013 4:41 PM
"This teaches us and everyone else that you can get on the cover of Rolling Stone by killing people. That's good, right?"
I don't think that's what Shel Silverstein had in mind. I can see the point that maybe Randazza was trying to get to: that we should not let our chains be yanked so easily. However, from there, from there he gets on the bad-idea interstate and he's doing 100 in the diamond lane to hell. Allow me to iterate the wrong turns and ramps missed:
"It makes it easier to deal with if we can look at this guy and say 'he's a monster.' "
The problem is, someone who indiscriminately kills and maims a whole bunch of people just to prove some vague point about a religion that he might or might not actually believe in... that's a pretty good definition of a monster. As Randazza himself points out, not all monsters look like Godzilla.
"Focusing on the dead teaches us nothing. "
Hogwash. If that were true, then why would we bother to study history? Focusing on the dead in fact teaches us quite a bit. If not for that, we likely would still be living in caves, being chased by saber-toothed tigers, because even if someone invented the spear, it would be forgotten as soon as he died. More to the point, Tsarnev's own brother is dead, but the deeds he did before dying are still very relavant.
"You're a citizen in the remnants of a democratic society. You have a responsibility to be smarter every day. Decrying Rolling Stone for trying to help you do that is not the right thing to do. "
This is where Randazza goes completely off into the weeds. Dafuq? Because some fuckwad bombed the Boston Marathon, that means I have a responsibility to become a better person? If I don't accept Rolling Stone's self-serving point of view, then I'm no better than the bomber? That is the sort of moral equivalence that malignent narcissts engage in: "Yeah, I was DUI and I got into an accident again and I killed some innocent people again. But you got a speeding ticket 15 years ago, so don't you judge me!" Not to mention that the idea of Rolling Stone is the arbiter of polite-society morals is absolutely laughable.
"Pressuring stores to take journalism off of their racks because you think you're supposed to be offended, that's not the right thing to do. "
I don't need Marc Randazza or anyone else telling me that I'm "supposed" to be offended or not offended. Again, this is narcissist-speak; it's invalidating the opinions of anyone who disagrees with the author. I damn well am offended and Marc Randazza can shove it if he disapproves of me being so.
Finally, we have the very percetive words of Gog:
"Fine. I think Rolling Stone jumped the shark decades ago and is desperate for attention."
Yep. Like the band that they take their name from, their ship sailed about 25 years ago.
Cousin Dave at July 23, 2013 11:52 AM
Leave a comment