The latest issue of Rolling Stone magazine in the US features a photo of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, one of the two accused of the recent bombings in Boston. 7-Eleven has removed the title from sale as has national drug store (c-store) chains CVS, Walgreens and some other retailers – see the report in Time for details on this. The Huffington Post report is also worth reading.
You can read the cover story article here.
I am interested in the story from the perspective of a retailer – would I take this issue of Rolling Stone off the shelves? This question is different for an independent retailer compared to a national chain as the stakes for the national chain are higher and the pressure that can be brought to bear through social media far greater.
From what I can tell many complaining about Rolling Stone are more concerned abut the cover photo than the article itself. They say it disrespects the victims of the bombing and glorifies the alleged bomber. Others say it’s not the role of the music magazine to cover the story. The attention the cover is receiving on Twitter and Facebook is extraordinary.
To me, Rolling Stone is demonstrating its relevance as a media outlet by covering this story. I’d go as far as saying that controversial as it may be, the cover makes commercial sense for the magazine. The best news outlets are those that take us places we may otherwise ignore, showing us angles we may not want to see. Democracy will not be well served by us only being fed stories and images we want to see.
Would I have this magazine on my shelves? Yes. Would I have this magazine on my shelves if my business was located in the US? Probably but I’d take on board feedback from customers. I’d not want to get into a position where customers control what I sell as it’s my business and I’m less likely to be successful if I let the tail wag the dog.
Of course I can’t truly say what I’d do if I were in the US as the politics and emotions around the issue of the Boston bombings and terrorism generally cannot be fully understood from this distance.
The photo is from the Rolling Stone website.
I would never buy it. Why glorify the terrorist.
I have seen on facebook a mock cover with a photo of the dead policeman’s face on it. That would be more appropriate. It shows the tragedy of the issue.
People like free speech as long as it doesn’t take them out of their comfort zone.
Plus you can not blame Rolling Stone for the publicity it is getting. The media that is reporting on this cover are the ones feeding this hysteria.
I will sell it in my shop because if I banned products from my store due to my personal views I would struggle to sell the newspapers most days!
Keith I don’t think the cover or article glorify the alleged bomber.
I can understand U.S outlets banning the magazine but here in Australia I would certainly give it a go, particularly as from what I’ve heard the actual article is not glorifying terrorism at all.
As for why a music magazine would do an article on this subject at all….???????
Think of all the the villians that have been posted on the cover of magazines. Hitler, Pol Pot, Bin Laden, and on it goes. We all know what they did, what they caused, but I dont think they were posted in any way to glorify them…this idiot is no different…
Rolling Stone hasn’t been just a “Rock Music” magazine for a very very long time and has also looked at the other side of the terrorism/war on terror equation with a series of articles from an embeded journalist during the second Iraq war. This series of articles was then in turn what the TV series “Generation Kill” was based upon.
The article doesn’t romanticise the terrorists and certainly doesn’t paint them in a good light but it does make you ponder what makes someone turn against the society they were brought up in. No different really that the two cowards who ran over and hacked up the British Soldier in the UK.
Having said that perhaps instead of the “rock star” style shot on the front cover they should have shown what he looked like after the shoot out with Police with multiple wounds, blood and the rest of the reality and not the good “clean” image.
When it arrives here I’ll have a think about whether I put it on the shelves or not but Bin Ladin had appeared on the cover of Time on two occassions so can’t really see a reason not to.
Rolling Stone has a history of non-music related cover stories.
Shows that I don’t pay much attention to Rolling Stone myself except for the old Dr Hook song.
Paul hit it on the head. Rolling Stone is not just a music mag and hasn’t been for quite a while. I think their quality of journalism is quite high in comparison to some of the others and most of it’s loyal readers would know this.
I’m horrified by what this grub did just like everybody else but I don’t think putting his face on a magazine is glorifying either him or his actions in any way. I think the photo and the motive behind putting it on the cover shows a person responsible for this atrocity can and does look like an otherwise normal kid of his age. The fact that he looks normal is what I find more unsettling. It’s staying on the shelf