Why wasn’t there a fuss when The New York Times published this cover photo of the Boston bomber?
The ongoing controversy over a cover story in Rolling Stone magazine (above) about Boston bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev (see HERE) is an odd one.
The magazine cover refers to Tsarnaev as “a monster.” Still, lots of people are upset apparently because the photo makes the bomber look like a nice young kid.
But that’s exactly the point of the Rolling Stone story. It’s about a popular kid who became a monster. That’s what it says right there on the cover.
I think what really happened here is that a few people made an Internet stink about the Rolling Stone cover, and then the matter snow-balled as it tapped into widespread disdain for popular media in general. Of course, it got downright ridiculous when right-wingers portrayed it as an indication of sympathy for terrorists on the part of the editors of Rolling Stone.
But a question arises: Why was there no big stink when The New York Times carried the same photo of Tsarnaev on its front page back in early May (see image at top)?
UPDATE: And then there’s this:
UPDATE II: HERE‘s an especially dumb column about the Rolling Stone cover story.