I am totally guilty of it: the second I wake up in the morning, I scroll through my Facebook and Twitter to make sure nothing Earth shattering happened in the last 8 hours. This morning, (not surprisingly) I saw that people were still feverishly sharing information about the Rolling Stone boycott. (If you have been living under a rock, let me give you the Cliff Notes version: the newest issue of Rolling Stone has Dzhokhar “Jahar” Tsarnaev, the living Boston bomber, on the cover) While Rolling Stone is never on my list of must-reads, I had to see what people were so angry about.
It took me almost an hour to read the article because I wanted to make sure I read every single word; I didn’t want to miss any subliminal messaging that glamorized terrorism. As I suspected, the article itself was overwhelming less provocative than the cover might suggest. If you had been watching any one of the 24-hour news channels on the day of the Boston Marathon, nothing in the article is entirely revolutionary or new. It aims to answer the same questions that we have when these unspeakable tragedies happen: Who are these people? How does one become so angry? How do these elaborate plans go undetected?
Since the outrage began, Rolling Stone has since added an editor’s note to the beginning of the article. In it, they explain the rational behind their decision, “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.” Fair enough, the article accomplishes what they set out to do.
However, I get it. It is not the article that has people outraged (why? because most haven’t even read it). It is the image on the cover. Was this a cheap ploy to increase magazine sales? Probably. Could they have predicted this reaction? Most definitely. The anger comes from the fact that the cover of Rolling Stone is reserved for rock stars (such as, Jim Morrison, Jimi Hendrix, Adele, Beyonce, etc.); you know you have made it when you land that prestigious spot. For Jahar to join this impressive list, it definitely sends out a dangerous message about what it takes to become famous.
Was this out of character for Rolling Stone? Not really, Charles Manson graced the June 15, 1970 cover, and the magazine even nabbed an exclusive interview with Manson from inside prison. They won a National Magazine Award for the piece. The difference between then and now is quite simple: social media. It allows people to dangerously jump on the bandwagon without all the information.
Yes, we can definitely point fingers at Rolling Stone; they were 100% cognitive of what they were doing. While the editors of Rolling Stone knew that many would make assumptions about the message without reading the actual article, is that really their fault? Does this blatantly disregard the moral responsibility that journalists have? Maybe publications should only write about rainbows and ponies because we are too lazy to do all the research. If that were the case, we would never get the chance to have these important conversations.
When does it become our responsibility to get the whole story? I am NOT saying I agree with Rolling Stone’s creative decision. What I am saying is, before pressing “share” on Facebook or “re-tweeting” on Twitter, take the time to read, understand, and form your own opinion. These social issues really are important.
READ THE ARTICLE. FORM YOUR OPINION. HERE IS THE LINK: http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/jahars-world-20130717#ixzz2ZPRu4ZbN
Leave a Reply