Add this Page to Facebook!   Submit to Twitter   Submit to Reddit   Submit to Stumble Upon   Pin It!   Fark It!   Tell A Friend  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite Save As Favorite View Article Stats

OpEdNews Op Eds

Matt Taibbi Explains the Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Rolling Stone Cover

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 1 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

Must Read 2   Well Said 2   Funny 1  
View Ratings | Rate It

Headlined to H2 7/20/13
Become a Fan
  (11 fans)

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.

read the rest at

Matt Taibbi is an investigative reporter for Rolling Stone magazine
Add this Page to Facebook!   Submit to Twitter   Submit to Reddit   Submit to Stumble Upon   Pin It!   Fark It!   Tell A Friend
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Sarah Palin's Impressively Incoherent "Duck Dynasty" Comments

Matt Taibbi Explains the Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Rolling Stone Cover

Ripping Off Young America: The College-Loan Scandal

On Christmas, Republicans Quietly Declare War on Themselves

The Vampire Squid Strikes Again: The Mega Banks' Most Devious Scam Yet

Chase's Twitter Gambit Devolves into All-Time PR Fiasco


The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
4 people are discussing this page, with 7 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

does not say that US actively suipported the Chech... by Mark Sashine on Sunday, Jul 21, 2013 at 3:21:53 PM
He is a journalist who does investigative news.And... by Rob Kall on Sunday, Jul 21, 2013 at 4:43:15 PM
and  we here do  not write for money.&nb... by Mark Sashine on Sunday, Jul 21, 2013 at 5:15:01 PM
 I don't feel you have come close to justifyi... by Rob Kall on Sunday, Jul 21, 2013 at 6:48:47 PM
  Videos and photos on Youtube and elsewhere,... by Howard Lewis on Sunday, Jul 21, 2013 at 7:21:39 PM
I am not sure why   Rob here considers m... by Mark Sashine on Sunday, Jul 21, 2013 at 7:41:59 PM
I took the time to read the article at Rolling Sto... by Richard Pietrasz on Monday, Jul 22, 2013 at 2:22:36 AM