July 18, 2013
No Cover for the Rolling Stone in Boston
Much of the media coverage from the day Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was captured has focused on the shock of people who knew him as a student with a promising future at Cambridge Rindge and Latin School. If there were ever a case of good kid gone bad, then Mr. Tsarnaev was it, the reports would suggest. With so much coverage already devoted to the topic, why is there such a heated response to a magazine’s report on the same topic? Simple — the latest response includes a previously used photo of Mr. Tsarnaev blown up on the cover of Rolling Stone.
The magazine is known for iconic covers including Jim Morrison of The Doors, John Lennon and Yoko Ono, etc. While the caption accompanying the photo — "How a popular, promising student was failed by his family, fell into radical Islam and became a monster" — makes clear the article’s intent, angry Americans have taken to social media and the airwaves to criticize and even call for a boycott of the magazine.
Retailers in the Boston area including CVS, Cumberland Farms, Kmart, Rite Aid, Roche Bros., Shaw’s, Stop & Shop, Tedeschi Food Shops, Walgreens and others have all said they will not be selling the issue in their stores. Statements from the various merchants have reinforced their sensitivity to people in the Boston area traumatized by the murderous event.
Tedeschi’s Facebook page included an explanation of its actions. "Tedeschi Food Shops supports the need to share the news with everyone, but cannot support actions that serve to glorify the evil actions of anyone. With that being said, we will not be carrying this issue of Rolling Stone. Music and terrorism don’t mix!"
As of 7:30 a.m. this morning, the post had 4,699 "likes" on Facebook with a number of comments suggesting the action had earned the company new customers. One person going the all cap route, said she was "A NEW CUSTOMER FOR LIFE!!"
As an explanation, Rolling Stone included a preface from the magazine’s editors to the article. "Our hearts go out to the victims of the Boston Marathon bombing, and our thoughts are always with them and their families. The cover story we are publishing this week falls within the traditions of journalism and Rolling Stone’s long-standing commitment to serious and thoughtful coverage of the most important political and cultural issues of our day. 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."
BrainTrust
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Do you agree or disagree with the decision by merchants to not carry the issue of the Rolling Stone with the Boston Marathon bombing suspect on the cover? What will this issue mean for the retailers and Rolling Stone going forward?
Poll
The merchants couldn’t care less about Rolling Stone. What’s more important is what their consumers want. Having a magazine that glorifies someone who terrorized their community is not appropriate. Perhaps Rolling Stone can make up for it by selling more tabloids elsewhere. It’s all about the dollars and the merchants probably feel it would irritate customers.
I can understand retailers wanting to be sensitive to their customers. The picture does depict Tsarnaev as a rock star in some sense. Personally, I think that if they wanted to cover the story they should have chosen a different direction with the photo.
The cover is simply glorification of evil, and demonstrates serious brain rot at Rolling Stone. Nothing said inside the magazine can offset the “in your face” prettifying of evil on the cover.
I absolutely support their decision. While I understand the article has a more investigative slant to it, customers would only know that IF they purchase the magazine and read it. All those who just see the cover will have the same reaction I did and that is that Rolling Stone glamorized a person who committed a terrible act.
Imagine a relative of one of the victims walking into a store and seeing the face that allegedly killed/maimed their loved one on the cover of a magazine looking like a rock star or actor. This was incredibly bad taste by Rolling Stone. If they wanted to show this coward on the cover, they should have used a photo of him in handcuffs, head down and walking into what I hope will be the last place he lives—prison. The retailers are doing the right thing for their customers.
As a journalist, I’m also upset for the author of the article. She now has to suffer the consequences of a massive misjudgment by her editors so her reporting won’t get its just attention.
George, this is a well written article and I thank you for letting us have the time to respond. I agree with the Boston area merchants. Just as Rolling Stone has the right to publish what they think is relevant to their readers; the Boston merchants have the right to say they do not want to glamorize it by carrying it on their shelves. This young man is not a John Lennon or The Doors. He is an alledged cold blooded murderer and maimer of people who will never have the life they once dreamed of having.
With print media dying a slow death, I think we just saw Rolling Stone jump the shark tank. The issue will no doubt be a big seller and highly collectible due to its sensational and highly controversial cover, but it’s too late. Consumers are moving on.
This year’s Boston Marathon resulted in great hurt to many observers and to Boston’s pride and sensitivity. Mr. Tsnaraev is directly linked to that hurt. Retailers do not wanted to further aggravate that situation by displaying the Rolling Stone issue with the bombing suspect on its cover.
Going forward, this issue will not mean much to the constituencies. Retailers will try to stay competitive without political overtones and Rolling Stone will do likewise, but with political undertones.
Rolling Stone can put whatever it likes on the cover. Retailers don’t have to sell the issue. This is not a big deal. It will not change the world as we know it.
Putting this terrorist’s face on the cover normally reserved for rock stars? A couple of new thresholds were reset here. First, insensitivity to the families that lost loved ones and who are coping with the aftermath of what this person did. The other threshold is “What were they thinking?”
That the merchants chose to refuse to be complicit in this disgusting “sensationalism at any cost” masquerading as journalism makes me proud to be a retailer. This should have been done by all retailers. Rolling Stone has sunk to new depths.
Context is everything and that is what is at issue here (pun intended).
“The cover of the Rolling Stone” is understood to be a space reserved for (literal) rock stars and the provocative, Jim Morrison-ish photo of Tsarnaev in that space changes the proposition. If the article is investigative rather than worshipful then the cover photo is in conflict with that premise.
I’ve been reminded that this is not the first time someone associated with a heinous act was on the cover of the Rolling Stone. Charles Manson made the cover many years ago. I can’t personally recall, but my guess is that many objected to the cover choice made back then, as well.
If Paula Deen is a pariah for something she may have said 20 years ago and merchants take her licensed merchandise off their shelves so as not to offend anyone, I think the answer here is an obvious yes. As for Rolling Stone, freedom of the press is a beautiful thing, it even allows a publication to self-destruct if its readers abandon it.
Whatever your opinion, Rolling Stone got what they wanted out of the cover…free publicity, huge debate, and I’m sure record or near record sales of this issue.
I agree with the decision not to carry the issue of Rolling Stone. Retailers serve shoppers, most of whom would be appalled to see evil displayed on the magazine rack. The decision is a no-brainer. Going forward, I would question whether retailers should ever carry Rolling Stone again.
Rolling Stone could have done a split run on the printing, and had one cover (without the bomber) in New England, and the bomber cover elsewhere. So many people in the Boston area know people who were maimed or killed. I had four family members close enough to hear and see the bombing.
I’d really like to read the Willie Nelson story that is promoted on the upper left of the cover, but I won’t be buying it. Up here, it’s personal, and too close to home. But this will blow over and be forgotten within a few months, so in a way it’s a tempest in a teapot. I support the retailers who pulled this issue, for whatever reason. It’s their right. I’m blessed that my niece, who was running nearby when the bomb went off, is safe.
I agree with all the comments here. Retailers should be thinking about their customers and what might offend them. Will this change their relationship with Rolling Stone going forward? I doubt it.
On the other hand, I must admit that when I saw this picture in my newspaper this morning, it struck me in a very different way. My reaction was, wow, this kid looks like a nice looking, all around guy. What happened???
That was a true wake up call for me and I suppose that might be what the editors of Rolling Stone were thinking too!
If RS was trying to create buzz, they succeeded. If, on the other hand, they are trying to sell magazines (especially in Boston), they might want to use better judgment next time.
I pretty much agree with Debbie on this (and implicitly disagree with the more heated comments that this was somehow some kind of low or unprecedented event in coverdom).
What does it mean for “Rolling Stone”? Nothing: they will continue to write frivolous articles about people most of us don’t care about.
For retail? It means we’ll hear the story again in the future when the next Mr/Ms X that someone doesn’t like for some reason appears on a cover somewhere.
Agree.
Retailers must be sensitive to the desires and concerns of their customers, and have been in terms of magazines and covers for years, including installing various rack apparatus to hide either specific covers or specific publications. At the same time the magazine publisher’s job is to sell magazines, including driving publicity which can include controversy when it meets their needs. I am not sure if this controversy has driven additional sales, however, it has certainly driven additional awareness.
Bottom line, retailers need to make their own decisions based on their shoppers needs and publishers need to drive sales. Sounds like both may be happening in this case.
More Discussions
Is Meta Committing to Retail via Meta Lab Stores, or Are Other Goals More Important?
Is Meta playing in retail, actually committing to retail, or looking for more data?Aerie Recruits Pamela Anderson To Highlight No-AI Models Promise
American Eagle’s Aerie banner has recruited former “Baywatch” star Pamela Anderson to broadcast the lifestyle brand’s…How Timely Is the Planned Lowe’s Website Renovation Focusing on Personalization?
Is Lowe’s being timely with its website reno, and is it right to be placed as…
The merchants couldn’t care less about Rolling Stone. What’s more important is what their consumers want. Having a magazine that glorifies someone who terrorized their community is not appropriate. Perhaps Rolling Stone can make up for it by selling more tabloids elsewhere. It’s all about the dollars and the merchants probably feel it would irritate customers.
I can understand retailers wanting to be sensitive to their customers. The picture does depict Tsarnaev as a rock star in some sense. Personally, I think that if they wanted to cover the story they should have chosen a different direction with the photo.
The cover is simply glorification of evil, and demonstrates serious brain rot at Rolling Stone. Nothing said inside the magazine can offset the “in your face” prettifying of evil on the cover.
I absolutely support their decision. While I understand the article has a more investigative slant to it, customers would only know that IF they purchase the magazine and read it. All those who just see the cover will have the same reaction I did and that is that Rolling Stone glamorized a person who committed a terrible act.
Imagine a relative of one of the victims walking into a store and seeing the face that allegedly killed/maimed their loved one on the cover of a magazine looking like a rock star or actor. This was incredibly bad taste by Rolling Stone. If they wanted to show this coward on the cover, they should have used a photo of him in handcuffs, head down and walking into what I hope will be the last place he lives—prison. The retailers are doing the right thing for their customers.
As a journalist, I’m also upset for the author of the article. She now has to suffer the consequences of a massive misjudgment by her editors so her reporting won’t get its just attention.
George, this is a well written article and I thank you for letting us have the time to respond. I agree with the Boston area merchants. Just as Rolling Stone has the right to publish what they think is relevant to their readers; the Boston merchants have the right to say they do not want to glamorize it by carrying it on their shelves. This young man is not a John Lennon or The Doors. He is an alledged cold blooded murderer and maimer of people who will never have the life they once dreamed of having.
With print media dying a slow death, I think we just saw Rolling Stone jump the shark tank. The issue will no doubt be a big seller and highly collectible due to its sensational and highly controversial cover, but it’s too late. Consumers are moving on.
This year’s Boston Marathon resulted in great hurt to many observers and to Boston’s pride and sensitivity. Mr. Tsnaraev is directly linked to that hurt. Retailers do not wanted to further aggravate that situation by displaying the Rolling Stone issue with the bombing suspect on its cover.
Going forward, this issue will not mean much to the constituencies. Retailers will try to stay competitive without political overtones and Rolling Stone will do likewise, but with political undertones.
Rolling Stone can put whatever it likes on the cover. Retailers don’t have to sell the issue. This is not a big deal. It will not change the world as we know it.
Putting this terrorist’s face on the cover normally reserved for rock stars? A couple of new thresholds were reset here. First, insensitivity to the families that lost loved ones and who are coping with the aftermath of what this person did. The other threshold is “What were they thinking?”
That the merchants chose to refuse to be complicit in this disgusting “sensationalism at any cost” masquerading as journalism makes me proud to be a retailer. This should have been done by all retailers. Rolling Stone has sunk to new depths.
Context is everything and that is what is at issue here (pun intended).
“The cover of the Rolling Stone” is understood to be a space reserved for (literal) rock stars and the provocative, Jim Morrison-ish photo of Tsarnaev in that space changes the proposition. If the article is investigative rather than worshipful then the cover photo is in conflict with that premise.
I’ve been reminded that this is not the first time someone associated with a heinous act was on the cover of the Rolling Stone. Charles Manson made the cover many years ago. I can’t personally recall, but my guess is that many objected to the cover choice made back then, as well.
If Paula Deen is a pariah for something she may have said 20 years ago and merchants take her licensed merchandise off their shelves so as not to offend anyone, I think the answer here is an obvious yes. As for Rolling Stone, freedom of the press is a beautiful thing, it even allows a publication to self-destruct if its readers abandon it.
Whatever your opinion, Rolling Stone got what they wanted out of the cover…free publicity, huge debate, and I’m sure record or near record sales of this issue.
I agree with the decision not to carry the issue of Rolling Stone. Retailers serve shoppers, most of whom would be appalled to see evil displayed on the magazine rack. The decision is a no-brainer. Going forward, I would question whether retailers should ever carry Rolling Stone again.
Rolling Stone could have done a split run on the printing, and had one cover (without the bomber) in New England, and the bomber cover elsewhere. So many people in the Boston area know people who were maimed or killed. I had four family members close enough to hear and see the bombing.
I’d really like to read the Willie Nelson story that is promoted on the upper left of the cover, but I won’t be buying it. Up here, it’s personal, and too close to home. But this will blow over and be forgotten within a few months, so in a way it’s a tempest in a teapot. I support the retailers who pulled this issue, for whatever reason. It’s their right. I’m blessed that my niece, who was running nearby when the bomb went off, is safe.
I agree with all the comments here. Retailers should be thinking about their customers and what might offend them. Will this change their relationship with Rolling Stone going forward? I doubt it.
On the other hand, I must admit that when I saw this picture in my newspaper this morning, it struck me in a very different way. My reaction was, wow, this kid looks like a nice looking, all around guy. What happened???
That was a true wake up call for me and I suppose that might be what the editors of Rolling Stone were thinking too!
If RS was trying to create buzz, they succeeded. If, on the other hand, they are trying to sell magazines (especially in Boston), they might want to use better judgment next time.
I pretty much agree with Debbie on this (and implicitly disagree with the more heated comments that this was somehow some kind of low or unprecedented event in coverdom).
What does it mean for “Rolling Stone”? Nothing: they will continue to write frivolous articles about people most of us don’t care about.
For retail? It means we’ll hear the story again in the future when the next Mr/Ms X that someone doesn’t like for some reason appears on a cover somewhere.
Agree.
Retailers must be sensitive to the desires and concerns of their customers, and have been in terms of magazines and covers for years, including installing various rack apparatus to hide either specific covers or specific publications. At the same time the magazine publisher’s job is to sell magazines, including driving publicity which can include controversy when it meets their needs. I am not sure if this controversy has driven additional sales, however, it has certainly driven additional awareness.
Bottom line, retailers need to make their own decisions based on their shoppers needs and publishers need to drive sales. Sounds like both may be happening in this case.