So, Rolling Stone put Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on its cover and people are up in arms about it.
The young man is suspected to have been a major contributor to the events of that dark day, and now people feel that Rolling Stone is glorifying him because he made a cover of a magazine. Ah, it’s not like Adolf Hitler or Charles Manson or O.J. Simpson or Osama Bin Laden or Timothy McVeigh made magazine covers. Oh wait…
Are people really this obtuse? Rolling Stone has been doing political stories since its inception, and this story is not unlike any others. Is it only because he was on the cover and not just inside the magazine, or is it because he committed an act of terrorism? Search online and see how many magazine covers OJ Simpson (post football) and Charles Manson made.
Media has always glamorized tragedies and profited from them, including 9-11 and the various gun-related murders in Columbine, Aurora, and Newtown. Many people look back on Columbine, after years of studies and research, and recognize that Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris were troubled teens. Does that excuse their behavior? No, but that is a conversation for another day.
I always find it humorous to a certain degree that people get outraged and up in arms over the most minute things. If you are upset that a music magazine (that has publicized politics for decades), then don’t buy it. The same logic goes for people who don’t like a certain TV show or news channel: don’t watch it.
Levels of sensitivity have reached levels of grandeur in this country. We should learn about people and events rather than vilify them. That’s how progress works and is attained in an ever-changing world.