I first heard about this controversial cover scrolling through my Twitter feed a couple of mornings ago. I'll be honest. When I clicked on the link to view an image, my first thought was that this was a Jonas brother doing a cover shoot with a 70s vibe. What's wrong with this, I asked myself, groggy-eyed.
I couldn't help but to wonder what it was that was making people so upset, so I did a little digging to see what it was about this ( preview ) cover that was causing so much outrage.
What I found was that subscribers, Bostonians, and the general public alike were outraged by the fact that Rolling Stone was glorifying a monster. Magazine covers are typically reserved for celebrities and public figures, not terrorists. Plastering Tsarnaev's face across a well-known and respected publication is seen as an endorsement of terrorism, say those who find the cover extremely disturbing.
However, I was scrolling through Facebook ( of all places ) this morning, and one of my journalism friends actually shared something worth reading: this article on Slate.
This short counterpoint, citing the RS cover as 'brilliant,' makes a valid point explaining that the 'dreamy' cover image of Tsarnaev is getting criticized because of its truth. Tsarnaev was a decent looking guy. He was young. He had a following of young women. Basically, he looked like a normal guy. Not a monster. Not a creeper. Just a guy. A guy who was crazed and mad and partook in something awful. Something that unfortunately cannot be taken back.
But what we can learn from the controversy surrounding this cover is that crazed madness does not discriminate. It can brew inside all of us. It can strike at any moment. If we continue to sugar coat what we think violence should look like, we will continue to be naive when violence occurs.
So that's my two cents. What's yours?
0 comments:
Post a Comment