‘Rolling Stone’ cover of alleged Boston bomber is fair and justified

Since it debuted on Nov. 9, 1967, celebrities from around the world have sought to be on the cover of Rolling Stone magazine.

From musicians like John Lennon to politicians like President Barack Obama, hundreds of important and unique people have appeared on the magazine’s cover over the years.

Never shying away from controversy, Rolling Stone earned new critics last week after it decided to put suspected Boston bomber Dzhohkar Tsarnaev on its Aug. 1 cover.

Critics of the cover included drug store-giant CVS and Boston’s mayor, Thomas Menino.

Although many Americans have vocalized their distaste of the cover, their arguments against Rolling Stone have largely been ill-advised and completely baseless.

With its First Amendment rights and reputable integrity, Rolling Stone should not have to defend itself against a wave of largely ignorant criticism. In short, their decision to put Tsarnaev on the cover was justified and necessary.

In a prepared statement, Menino accused Rolling Stone of feeding “into (an) obvious marketing strategy.”

“Your … cover rewards a terrorist with celebrity treatment,” Menino said. “It is ill-conceived, at best, and re-affirms a terrible message that destruction gains fame for killers and their ‘causes.’”

It is clear, however, that Rolling Stone had no intention to use Tsarnaev as a way to boost sales.

“The cover story … falls within the traditions of journalism and Rolling Stone’s long-standing commitment to serious and thoughtful coverage,” the editors of Rolling Stone wrote.

They continued by writing “the fact that Tsarnaev is young … makes it all the more important for us to examine the complexities of this issue.”

By putting Tsarnaev on the cover, the Rolling Stone editors did not glorify his actions. They merely acknowledged that his story and image were front-page worthy.

Nowhere in the feature article [“Jahar’s World”] did the author, Janet Reitman, advocate for violence or the bombing of innocent civilians.

If the magazine did support Tsarnaev, however, a boycott would most likely be necessary.

By putting him on the cover, Rolling Stone merely acted in accordance with its previous ground-breaking stories.

In the words of the author, the purpose of the article was to detail “how a popular, promising student was failed by his family, fell into radical Islam and became a monster.”

In addition to Menino, companies like CVS have pulled the issue from its stores and said it “is the right decision out of respect for the victims of the [Boston] attack and their loved ones.”

While the position of CVS can be understood, it is wrong nonetheless.

Putting Tsarnaev’s image on the cover does not justify his actions or aim to strike fear into the hearts of Americans.

If Rolling Stone was to mock the victims of the bombing, then a boycott out of respect would be necessary.

Critics of the Tsarnaev cover are essentially calling for censorship.

The only objectionable action from Rolling Stone was that it did not refer to Tsarnaev as an alleged bomber on the cover.

Although the chances of Tsarnaev being convicted is near absolute, he is still, nonetheless, a suspect in the Boston bombing case.

Although this cover will likely continue to divide Americans in the near future, its significance will be short-lived.

Future news stories will surely take precedent, and the cover of an alleged bomber will inevitably be forgotten.

Shane Newell is a junior journalism major and the opinions editor of the Daily 49er.