As horrified we all were by 911, there was a tiny bit of comfort that the monsters behind it were not like us. They were mad men, radical religious extremists far away on the other side of the world.
I agree with most of the arguments from those who say that putting Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on the cover of Rolling Stone Magazine is in poor taste. I wonder however if it is the cover that bothers people so much or the fact that Dzhokhar is not ugly. We seem to like our monsters ugly, makes it easier to accept, easier to spot them, easier to mentally distance them from ourselves. Seems to me, that although they never made the cover of RS, the Sandy Hook and Batman theatre shooters were on the covers of almost every newspaper and splashed across the screen at nausea after their hideous crimes. Maybe the fact they both had sort of a crazed look made it easier to swallow.
Now I want to be clear, I am not comparing the behaviour of acting out celebrities and terrorists. But sadly, in America, bad behaviour is what gets you attention. Whether it be simply acting stupid, acting out addictions publically, getting drunk, wrecking your car or in more extreme cases murder. OJ anyone? My feelings toward this cover are about the same as my feelings about Oprah just making a two million dollar deal with Lindsay Lohan. Crimes of course are different, but the profiting from pain theory is about the same. Some of the most talented entertainers in the world, singers Groban and Streisand, actors Streep, DiNero and Day Lewis rarely make the covers of magazines. Oprah's biggest interviews last year were not Politian's or award winning actors, but Whitney Houston's daughter and The Kardashians. Matthew Perry was not on last week's People Magazine because of his incredible post Friends television career?
The outrage rings a bit hypocritical, as any attention, including the cover is a form of promotion for the magazine. Do all the protestors blogging, tweeting and publically posting their outrage about this cover understand all they are doing is bringing more attention, and more dollars, to the magazine? I don't know about you but I have not bought a copy of RS in years, and had no intention of starting with this one... but after all the attention....
You don't reward bad behaviour with attention, you ignore it. Acting out little kids don't get parties, they get time-outs. Why is it that we don't seem to understand this as adults? As much as I loath the faux celebrity status that so many people like Paris Hilton, The Gosslin and Kardashian's have been able to obtain, the real responsibility for their success sits directly with everyone who financially supports them by watching and buying the magazines with them on the cover. If people don't want criminals on the cover of Rolling Stone, don't buy the magazine and don't provide it free publicity by promoting it with online outrage.
4 comments:
On the Austin, TX, newspaper site The Austin American Statesman, it was reported the largest grocer in Texas, H.E.B. will not carry the magazine. In the comments section, someone posted as part of a comment: " I would also support pulling those magazines from view in highly travelled places where impressionable youth are..."
I replied back with this comment:
" I would also support pulling those magazines from view in highly travelled places where impressionable youth are..."
Do you realize how silly this sounds? The "impressionable youth" you speak of are more technologically savvy than 75 percent of their parents and if they want to read the magazine, they will get it. Are you going to ban TV, the Statesman, and every other form of media that are and will publish the front page of Rolling Stone? Silliness.
But thank goodness we have our controlling parents at HEB, Walgreens, 7-11, and CVS to protect our tender eyes.
Wow. I never really thought about it that way but I think your absolutely right about people feeling uncomfortable that this madman is somewhat attractive and not the ugly monster that Bin Laden was.
On a side note I think your distaste for Oprah is hilarious. I've always had mixed feelings about her. She can have some brilliant interviews but can also have some atrocious interviews like the Beyonce interview where she kissed her butt the entire time. The Lindsay Lohan thing to me just sounds like a smart business move that I can't really blame her for going after.
Back somewhat on topic I can't help but be a bit outraged at the official who released the photos of the Boston Bombers capture in response to the Rolling Stone cover. He really should have known better than to stoop to such level. Professionalism means rising above personal feelings and doing your job without violating the rights of others.
It's really just a magazine cover and if people don't like it they shouldn't buy it. But the protest and such is misplaced outrage. I'm not going to buy the magazine because I don't want a picture of someone evil sitting on my coffee table but I don't have an a problem with Rolling Stone putting something attention grabbing on their cover to sell magazines and of course this issue will be a big seller because of the protesters.
-Chris
I guess I do sort of have a distaste for Oprah...lol
Appreciate the comments! tx
With the new "Kick-Ass" coming out soon, I'm just curious if people might mistake this cover as Aaron Taylor-Johnson. They're practically twins!
Post a Comment