The Rolling Stone magazine is under fire from irate readers after placing Suspect #2 on the cover of their August issue. Suspect #2 is the lone survivor from the terrible Boston Marathon bombing this past May. Along with a photo of the bomber the magazine posted a headline: “The Bomber. How a popular, promising student was failed by his family, fell into radical Islam and became a monster.”
More than 6,000 people have left comments on the legendary magazine’s Facebook page; most of them denouncing the decision. The hash tag #BoycottRollingStone is currently trending on Twitter. The magazine prides itself as one that not only covers music and entertainment, but politics as well. The feature story apparently provides “new” details on what went wrong in his life.
I am incensed that magazine editors would place a photo of this murderer on their cover. I don’t really care if they did it with Charles Manson. Nor do I care that other magazines have done it in the past. It doesn’t make it okay.
I don’t have a problem with the magazine providing an article on the latest developments. I have a problem with his picture featured on any platform. Personally I don’t think his name and/or picture should be further publicized. I consciously made the decision to never publicize the names of such people. You may notice that I refer to him as Suspect #2. I refuse to use my social platform to publicize their hate and message.
Furthermore, I am disappointed that the magazine didn’t take the opportunity to feature a survivor of the terrible bombing. Why wasn’t Adrianne Haslet on the cover? I understand magazine and news outlets try to provoke the populace in the hopes of added publicity. They hope to increase viewership and/or readership. But I think you can be thought-provoking while still respectful. In this case I think they failed.
What do you think?
Email: [email protected]
Twitter: @adrakontaidis & @talkrealdebate
