The Internet is all in a tizzy over Rolling Stone's decision to put Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, one of the horribly demented dumbshits that allegedly committed the Boston Marathon bombing, on their cover. What's the problem, you might say? He's been on a lot of magazine covers, right? Yeah, well the Rolling Stone one makes him look like a fucking rock star. If I didn't know what this piece of shit looked like and I just glanced at the cover I'd think he was some crappy teenage emo rock artist. The article examines how a good-looking, well-liked, American-bred teen can turn into a terrorist. These questions are important, particularly so that we can take the next one of these broken souls out behind the shed and shoot them before they hurt anyone. But is that really Rolling Stone's job and isn't there a better way of doing it?
Rolling Stone thinks it's still on the journalistic cutting edge but, let's face it, it hasn't been that in decades. It isn't the subversive underground magazine that Hunter S. Thompson wrote for in the 70's. Now it's just an oversized waste of paper full of Dolce and Gabbana ads and articles about Pink's latest album. I frankly don't give a flying fuck what they think caused Tsarnaev to snap. It would be like me getting my financial news from Highlights Magazine. CVS pharmacies is threatening to not carry the magazine in their stores and other places are considering similar boycotts. But what does Rolling Stone have to say about the controversy? They said that while they feel bad for the people of Boston,
"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."Yeah, that. Or trying to sell magazines on a national tragedy.