That should be clear. Doesn't mean the victims and their families should dictate RS editorial policy, just that their perspective should be be factored in to any thoughtful reaction here.

And I've read the story. Very weak.

as do many, many people. the article has been lauded everywhere from the NYT to USA today.

Pretty sad when you've got two extra months to dig up something. Their reporter was right to cancel on Lawrence O'D. She had nothing.

I did learn that Jahar is $20K in debt, which gave me additional insight into his nihilism. But that doesn't fit with "how he was failed by his family and turned into a monster." The article doesn't come close to delivering what is suggested on the cover. The whole enterprise is a well-crafted stunt and we're playing along.

that I've seen.

and tell me, were you ever so outraged about the NYT putting that fucking same pic of him above the fold on the front page? If so, please link to your righteous outrage. If not, why not?

you would be upset with this cover and an article that portrays him as a victim?

It attempts to explain who he was, where he came from, why he did what he did. I happen to think that's important.

I honestly don't know how I'd feel had I lost a leg, but I do know myself quite well: I suspect that this is not something that would outrage me though I might find it upsetting. Judging by what I've been through in my life and my reactions, I can't see myself outraged over this.

I can understand the outrage that many people feel over this and I suspect you can, too. That was the point of my opening post here.

There wasn't this kind of outrage when the New York Times ran with the same picture, front page, above the fold. For that matter there wasn't this kind of outrage when Rolling Stone put Charles Manson on their cover in 1970. The entire reaction to this has been vastly disproportionate, absurd, and frankly stupid.

and i think the only reason they put him on the cover was because of that pic.

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is a victim. It's not his fault that he and his brother set off those bombs. It's someone elses' fault.

...then the Bushies have won.

What's been quoted so far in this thread in no way excuses Tsarnaev. We liberals are supposed to be willing to look for causes behind mere effects, and for the humanity behind the mass-media images.

Are we afraid that the bomber might have been failed by his family? Since when?

1. Bright, promising student or young professional (most people who knew him say he was once a decent sort)
2. Parent/marital troubles/abuse/depression, etc.
3. Has ambition and big dreams, but can't quite find his "niche" socially and professionally
4. Completely isolates himself or falls in with wrong crowd (gangs/gun nut militia/drug game/political or religious extremists)
5. National tragedy ensues

You've just named Virginia Tech, Columbine, Unabomber, Brevik, etc. etc....All those folks made national covers, too

the NYT and many other newspapers. Where's the fucking outrage over that? Oh, it NEVER happened.

this is so pathetic. talk about buying into stupid ginned up outrage. congrats on that to all the suckers.

furthermore, the article was excellent as virtually everyone has acknowledged.

RS is displayed upright, on magazines shelves, for a month. The typical RS cover, overwhelmingly, is of rock stars, movie stars, and celebrities, gussied up to look good. Airbrushed, photoshopped, and prettified.

Look--no one is saying don't buy the stupid rag, and then try to sell it on EBAY like some idiots are doing. Or line the birdcage with it...whatever.

Just don't expect to buy it at New England based businesses that have a modicum of respect and restraint for a region that dealt with such a profound loss.

And you are mistaken--I remember the Charles Manson cover firsthand, and it DID cause a great deal of ""outrage" for the same reason--because "the cover of the Rolling Stone" is supposed to be an HONOR.

Are you not old enough to remember this? Listen to the lyrics.

Do you have an actual point here apart from irrational outrage? Rolling Stone is a magazine which, in addition to its coverage of popular culture, features serious journalism; that the subjects of such serious journalism may be on the cover is not really something I personally see as an issue. If it were Time or US News & World Report no-one would bat an eyelid.

of that twit leering out from a magazine shelf, I can't help you. You are plainly insufficiently equipped to grasp that "actual point" I made.

Let me make this entirely clear to you--go buy the fucking magazine, if it means that much to you. Just don't expect to buy it at New England based businesses that have a modicum of respect for their customers. Don't like that? Too effin' bad. And don't get "irrationally outraged" that you can't stroll into CVS and buy the thing. See, no one cares that you're annoyed about this. You aren't gonna get your way. Your personal view is not, and will not be, controlling on this matter.

Since you're intent on creating bullshit comparisons, do TIME or US NEWS devote most of their covers to airbrushed pop stars, movie stars, and prettied up celebrities who are portrayed in a positive, worshipful light?

Or do they cover something called "the NEWS" most of the time?

See, the "actual point" there is that Rolling Stone is a music industry magazine that occasionally does culture, crime and politics pieces INSIDE the magazine. US NEWS and TIME are "news" magazines, and "news" is their bread and butter. They sometimes cover the music scene, but they usually do that INSIDE the magazine....

I'm not "irrationally outraged"; I'm bemused, more than anything. You don't have an actual point; you have mindless indignation and a total inability to grasp the point of the cover, it looks like (which is right there in the caption, by the way; how does an apparently "normal" and popular kid turn into a terrorist/bomber/mass murderer?). And it's the exact same photo that ran on page one of the New York Times; cropped, but not retouched or otherwise altered.

And Rolling Stone routinely does politics and news stories, not "occasionally"; it was something reported in RS that got Stanley McChrystal dismissed for insubordination, if you'll remember (along with Matt Taibbi's articles on the financial crisis); those surely qualify as "serious" journalism?

I support CVS's decision, along with Walgreen's, Stop and Shop, Tedeschi's and other businesses, to not carry the magazine.

You wanna buy it? Go ahead. Just don't buy it in one of those stores. Don't like that those businesses are not carrying it? Too bad. You paint yourself as "bemused" and not indignant (mindlessly or otherwise), but your continued carping at me about this topic suggests that you're quite annoyed about this--otherwise, you wouldn't go on about it like you're doing. You would, instead, "get over it," and not demand that New Englanders see things your way.

I was born at night, just not last night.

That's my view, and it's not "irrational." What's irrational is that someone is getting pissed off like a wet hen because businesses decide to NOT carry a product, even though those businesses were upfront enough to tell people "Don't come here for this product because we're giving it a miss this month."

I've been reading RS for four or five decades off and on--the politics, with rare exception, is INSIDE. The MURDERERS, with now two exceptions, are inside. The musicians, celebrities, infotainment people--all dressed up with Pepsodent smiles--are on the cover. The only exceptions lately have been the odd mocking cartoons of Bush, and a cover of (rock star, prettified, airbrushed, and smiling) Bill Clinton. Oh--and Al Gore's penis, front and center--another "Rolling Stone Cover Controversy" that they played for all the free publicity it was worth.



Murderers, terrorists, and criminals don't grace the cover of the Rolling Stone. It's not the paradigm. The Manson cover, as I said, caught a world of shit. People thought it was wrong to put a mass murderer on the cover of that magazine.

Guess who was on the cover of that issue you're going on about that featured Stanley McChrystal? The General? Nooooooo. Michael Hastings? Noooooooo! A dusty, grimy pic of an Afghan outpost? NOOOOOOOO!

The cover for that issue was LADY GAGA IN A THONG.

"Serious" journalism, maybe...but the cover stayed true to their business model.

He wouldn't know the place if he couldn't see the Pru.

And, seeing as he gets a paycheck from RS, doncha think he might have a bit of an agenda? Huh? Maybe? Ya think?

Too bad--his gripes don't fly, EITHER. Read the comments below his little position paper--most people are telling him to pound sand.

Huntington Avenue says so, doesn't make that true. It does not work because it is tasteless.

It stinks like Rolling Stone trying to make money off of the tragedy of others. It stinks like craven opportunism, rank commercialism, going too far and not "getting" that they are being offensive.

I can tell you this--more people in Boston share my perspective than yours. I'm sure there are contrarians out there, but they are in the minority.

Rolling Stone actually does very little political journalism as a function of their overall product. They may give you an article a month, but the magazine is much bigger than one article.

They should stick to what they're good at, if they can retrieve their customer base.

People can pooh-pooh all they'd like, they'll just have to go buy their magazine elsewhere.... and get over it.

This is all about what he looks like, and what people perceive a terrorist / bomber should look like. The two don't match, which is making people upset. If he was ugly and abnormal looking, nobody would care. However, since he looks like an average guy - someone you would go to the bar with or meet at a club, it scares people. They don't want it to be true.

I like the pic the statie took of him coming out of the boat. That would work as a cover shot.

If Rolling Stone was concerned with murderers, why didn't they put these guys on the cover?



Answer--they're not cute, with dreamy eyes and expensive shirts and tousled hair.

Believe me, in the city of Boston, in the commonwealth of Massachusetts, this guy could have two pig heads and be six different kinds of "abnormal looking" and people would still care about seeing justice done. He could look like an angel and people would still want justice.

It's about NOT creating a cult of personality around him, that's what most feel.

People are concerned about what he DID, and they feel that the attention should be focused away from him--that he shouldn't be given the Fame Monster Gift that RS has handed to him with this boneheaded choice of a cover, like he's a Kardashian with pressure cooker bombs.

RS was trying to show him when he was perceived as normal. He didn't look like a total nut like Lanza or Holmes. He looked like a normal guy. The point is that this could be anyone on the cover - your neighbor, your friend, your cousin, etc.

The point, I believe, is that there is no "killer" look. It's a stereotype. Showing him to look like a killer wouldn't make the point they were trying to make, and would further the stereotype.

There are plenty of pictures of him available that don't have that soft light, expensive shirt, carefully posed, "look into my eyes" vibe.

They knew what they wanted, and they got it.

He doesn't look at all "normal" in that picture--he probably took a half dozen until he got just the right facial expression, as the kids do these days.

He looks FAMOUS-- like a relaxed rock star; that was surely the look he was going for, and that was the photograph that RS chose...for the very REASON that he looks like a rock star.

I don't think Adam Lanza or the "Aurora Nut" look like killers, either--they look Rather Mentally Ill, frankly. You can walk around any mall in USA and see people with "that look" (maybe without the orange hair) being led around by their tired, older mothers, still raising an adult living in their basement, looking like they could use a break, often as not.

Here's a "normal" kid in a "normal" picture:




Here's another pic of a "normal" kid:



Here's a normal kid with his normal friends:



But none of those would do, now, would they? Why? Because Rolling Stone puts Rock Stars on their cover.

Osama Bin Laden was on a RS cover.

The reason he looks like a 'rock star' in the photo is because they humanized him. The other photos you posted are not as powerful of a statement as him in a "rock star" pose - this portrays him as somebody who is just like everybody else - someone who had a good life.

I see an irony in RS's photo. This is what I'm talking about - he was the normal American male - flashy at times, bit of an ego, maybe even thought of himself as a rock star. Looking at that photo, you would think he had it all. The underlying theme of the photo provokes a sad feeling - how does somebody with so much commit such an atrocity?

If the magazine actually praised him, then the outrage would justified. They didn't.

Wonder why that is?

I remember an article or two about him, but I don't remember him on the cover.

I'd love to see it--please post it. I'll wait.

Anyone who says something similar is probably thinking of the same cover.

Everyone else on the cover of Rolling Stone, save "Jahar" and "Manson," (two covers that have gotten serious pushback) had broad followings--even if the readership of RS didn't necessarily care for them (Bush, RMoney, e.g.). They weren't incarcerated to answer to charges of the crime of mass murder.

The overwhelming majority of RS covers are musicians, actors, and other artists. That is their paradigm, the cover shots are glamorized, and designed to show the subject in the best possible light.

Had the magazine said something like "Dzhokhar's Awesome Life!" or something like that, the outrage would be justified. Instead, the cover just appears to match the contents in the magazine. As stated above, I believe it was intended to be ironic, not glamorizing. It's an attempt to get you to see him as human.

Also, keep in mind that Rolling Stone does have serious journalistic articles pretty often. It's not all pop-related stuff.

I think everybody is finding meaning where there is none. Why would Rolling Stone glamorize Tsarnaev anyways? Doesn't make much sense - there would be no logical reason to.

All I can tell you is to look at the "man/woman on the street" interviews. The overwhelming majority of people see what a few on this thread are struggling to deny--that he is being presented like a Rock Star.

Sometimes, "irony" bleeds over (pardon the term) into "pisspoor judgment" and "bad taste." RS was "too clever by half." This, to my mind, is a desperate attempt by an aging publisher to stay "relevant"
with "the kids." He should gather up his dignity, IMO, say it was a poor editorial choice, and move forward.

It did give him what he wanted, though, which was publicity in a slow month for newsstand publications.

You do realize--or maybe you don't--that there is a large "cult of personality" formed around this little cretin? Look on the Facebook, you'll see.

On that? Wow, now that is classic.

Ever worked with a news crew? I would bet not.

Here's the bottom line, and I know this is difficult for you to grasp, but this is it--you can snark at me all you want. You can be snide, make it a "federal case" because you think I have never "worked with a news crew" and you can even be personally insulting, but the end result won't change a thing.

If you want to buy that magazine, you go on and do it, but understand this: you're not going to buy it at a half dozen or more major outlets where it is ordinarily available, because those businesses, supported by a substantial number of their customers, don't want to see that shit on the shelves.

RS, in a fit of corporate, attention-seeking, greed, miscalculated. They didn't realize the "degree of offense" felt by many of us with their choice of that photo.

And that is what is truly "classic."

Put your back in it, now....keep digging, if you'd like.

Dramatic contrast used to starkly illustrate a point is lost on the sub-liberate and the dogmatic far too often in this age of stark literalism and denial of context/nuance...

shot."

I won't stoop to make comments using loaded, eff-u terms like "sub-literate," or "dogmatic," because that kind of thing would be both uncivil and personally insulting, and far below the standards of polite discourse on DU, but anyone with an iota of sensitivity and awareness--and, dare I say, an ability to understand the true meaning of NUANCE-- can see that RS was not looking for the contrast between a normal kid and a monster. They wanted the look of a rock star, and they got it.

I've posted a few pics of that "normal kid" they could have used, here are a few more of a "normal kid" -- not a rock star in a designer shirt:








Here's a "normal kid" right before he placed a bomb that killed three people and fucked up hundreds:



They made a deliberate, editorial decision to use that picture, and it wasn't for the purposes of displaying this cretin as a "normal kid." They wanted a rock star. Anyone who cannot see that is being willfully obtuse, complicit in the re-infliction of pain and distress upon victims of this idiot's actions, for purposes that they have to sort out on their own.

weeks. You claim to be a big expert on what Rolling Stone is, but you think it is a monthly?

Perhaps your view of the magazine is based on your having missed every other issue for the last few decades, thinking it was a monthly?

Do I subscribe? Fuck no. Will I? Same response. Will I pay for it in future? Again, no, not for awhile, anyway, because they've annoyed me. Will I huff and puff with dramatic indignation, and turn my back on it if I see it on some errant coffee table? Of course not, because I don't infuse this shit with as much drama as you are doing.

I used to buy it on rare occasion for the "music industry" and "pop culture" news, which is what it specialized in and what young people (and I was young, once) used to enjoy reading about; more likely, I'd find it on a friend's side table or glance at it in a library--but nowadays I really don't care what Justin Beiber is up to, and their occasional "serious writing" just isn't worth the price of admission.

I don't like what they did with this cover. I support the businesses who have refused to sell this issue. You're just going to have to accept that, much as it quite evidently infuriates you.

Some are too clueless or emotional to understand it.

He was a normal person, and now is not!

If the boston stores don't want to sell it it is their right. Suppressing other opinions is a great trait.

Backfires. LOL.

elsewhere."

And it hasn't backfired. They are getting an enormous amount of support in the region for their stance.

I'm sure if you get off your behind you'll find a place selling this magazine, if you simply must have it. It just won't be one of those New England based businesses, many of whom have a presence at the Marathon, that are personally offended by this--as is THEIR right to so be.


I'll also wager that most of the people crying here about "Waaah, a BAN!!!" are not regular patrons of CVS, Walgreens, Stop n Shop, Tedeschis, etc. It's not like "their" spot for buying "their copy" of Rolling Stone has been violated. Those businesses are taking care of THEIR customers, and good for them.

See, it's a free country--and those businesses are free to support the victims and not buy into the corporate greed behind this cheap publicity stunt.

about this, otherwise you wouldn't continue engaging me with lame little "Lol" and "Figures" comments....through gritted teeth, I'd say!

One more time--your bitter opinion is not going to change anything.

You'll just have to adjust to that reality. I'm sure you will, in time.

All the "laughing" in the world isn't going to change that. So "LOL" away if that's what makes you happy.

Whiners have not read the fucking article.

article isn't the problem. The picture is.

As for whining, the people doing the most of that are the ones who are mad at the businesses that won't carry the magazine.

The people who agree with the businesses' decisions to not carry the magazine are entirely content. The complainers (i.e. whiners) are the ones confusing "free speech" with the ability of a private business to decide what they want to sell.

Who is saying they have to carry it? Please post a link where someone wants to force them to.

We have been reading about his background for months.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/19/us/massachusetts-bombers-profiles

Boston suspects: Immigrant dream to American nightmare
By Wayne Drash, Moni Basu and Tom Watkins, CNN
updated 10:49 AM EDT, Sun April 21, 2013

The background stories of the 2 brothers suspected in Boston bombing

SethSeth April 19
- See more at: http://www.thethinblueline.net/discussion/485/the-background-stories-of-the-2-brothers-suspected-in-boston-bombing/p1#sthash.G4VUeR1x.dpuf

did they cover the pic on the top of the pile? Can you see it any less clearly?

but congratulations on buying into this ridiculous ginned up outrage.

Perhaps not. In fact, I'd wager that's the case.

I think the person who is "outraged" here isn't me. I don't have a need to use "LOL" or "desperate much" to make my point.

Bottom line--you aren't going to get your way. The businesses that made this decision are suppporting the victims of the bombing, even if you don't like that.

Too bad for you, I guess!

After reading many of the replies here, I believe that I need to go out and get some fresh air.

their own petard, or their own improvised pressure cooking device, if you will. These comments are instructive, not just about this particular issue, but they go to character, in general.

We learn a lot about people's attitudes regarding compassion, humanity, and common sense, to say nothing of their enthusiasm for pointless, boneheaded contrariness from these exchanges. I find them illustrative, actually. They believe that their anger, directed towards me, personally, with included invective, will make a difference. It won't. They think they are defending some ill-thought-out notion of "free speech," when all they are doing is taking the side of the Greedy, Profiteering, Attention-Seeking Corporate Pigs in this equation.

You can really get to know people by seeing what their reaction is to the pain and discomfiture of their fellow citizens, how their "right" to buy a crappy music magazine in a drugstore they likely never patronize is more important than the feelings of families who have been scarred for life by a tragedy at an event that has always, up to now, brought nothing but sheer joy for so many.

It can make one feel a bit besmirched, reading some of the ugly and childish commentary on this thread, but it's really all on them. Their words, their burden.

Nonetheless, I am about to go jump in a lake in a bit! The pause that refreshes...!

and always has been published every two weeks. An issue is 'on the stands' for two weeks, not for a month. I've been reading Rolling Stone since the late 70's and it is hard to accept that another long time reader would think it was a monthly magazine, as it never has been. You remember the reaction to the Manson cover, but you thought for 40 years RS was a monthly? Interesting memory you have.

I never claimed to be a subscriber, or even a terribly faithful reader. I have read enough of the things down the decades to form an opinion about them, though.

Fourteen days on a stand up magazine rack isn't one day lying flat amongst a pile of other newspapers.

I've been reading it off and on since the first issues in the late sixties, which didn't have much, if any, color in them. I have to say it was better then--less slick, less corporate, less Britney-Beiber-licious...it was more about the music, with a bit about the culture and the current scene. For many years I did not live in America and didn't have access to it unless someone brought one packed in their things, and handed it round. That was before the "internet" mind you.

But hey, no one is suggesting--not for one second, mind--that you eschew the "Squeeeeeeee!!!!! Isn't He The Cutest" publication-- if that's your thing. By all means, PLEASE, read on. Be My Guest! Go for it! Have fun! Just don't go looking for the "Dreamy Jahar" edition at CVS or Stop and Shop, because, no matter how much you snark, poke, prod, goad, bait, or otherwise carp at me, you ain't gonna find it there...!

Such hysteria over nothing. It's like people freaking out because a store employee said "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Xmas." The guy was a royal idiot and murderer, and he's never going to see outside prison walls again. So what if a mag published a nice-looking pic on the cover? Nobody is going to feel an ounce of sympathy because of it. Nobody will feel any less angry over the death and pain he caused. This is such a blitheringly stupid non-issue.

Not condemning a magazine for journalism would be a good start, probably. "We are upset because the bomber doesn't look like an obvious psychopath or twisted monster!" ...which is kind of the entire point, that no, he doesn't, so...how did a seemingly promising and well-liked kid go from being normal to being a suspected killer?

And quite honestly I've seen much, MUCH more outrage from people who've taken it upon themselves to be outraged on behalf of the victims of the bombings and their families.

Why do I suspect that there'd be a lot less outrage if they'd edited the photo to make him look more, well, like a stereotypical Middle Easterner? Like, say, this, for instance:

?175

Outside of asshole conservative commentators, I haven't seen anyone objecting to the article, which by all accounts it excellent.

Instead, the objection is to the magazine's obvious, transparent and successful effort to generate controversy and sensationalism by using that particular photo for the cover. Would the article have been less excellent if they'd run a different cover?

And why does Rolling Stone now take its cues from the NYT?

The magazine reflects HIS tastes, HIS interests, and HIS worldview--it's a very personal effort--albeit a corporate one--in that regard.

He's a geezer (and before you think I am insulting him, I am one too), he thinks that popular music begins and ends with the stuff HE likes, he gives short shrift to minority and "pop" artists (except when his hand is forced--e.g. they make more money than Elvis or the Beatles), and his grip on the whole "Voice of the Music Industry" thing is gone, what with the arrival of magazines geared to today's music, like VIBE and HIP HOP and BLENDER, that actually put black people on the cover without them having to die tragically and too young (Tupac) or insult teenagers at music award ceremonies (Kanye).

He's wanting to branch out, I think, because he's lost the bubble on what is fresh in the music industry. The magazine's musical focus is pretty much about what someone who was one of the "Don't Trust Anyone Over 30" crowd in the late sixties likes. That's great for older readers, not so great for the kids. He has the disdain of his generation for what was termed "Top Forty Crap" back in the day, stuff that has only become "acceptable listening" forty years on. I think his readership has flattened, too--young people who are music fans (and most young people are) just don't look to RS the way previous generations did for music industry-centric business.

It wants to become more of an "omnibus" magazine, but there are so many flavors of that kind of publication already that it could end up in worse shape than it is now. I think the editor - publisher is at a bit of a crossroads right now, even if he doesn't quite realize it yet.

There are some here in Boston that no longer have limbs to pull their knickers up.

So.....

My own 14 year old LIBERAL son said the same damn thing, in so many words. He said de-regulation at the Texas plant that exploded the same week killed far more people and deserved far more media attention.

Obama - AND our lameass Congress - haven't fixed that.

But, zoning is only part of it. The federal government sets regulations for fertilizer (and other industrial) plants and those regulations weren't being followed. As a result of our lazy-ass, pro-corporate Congress and a president who doesn't play enough hardball with those jokers, the fertilizer plant wasn't properly fined, shut down or in any way reprimanded.

I realize Obama can't do everything on his own, but when he keeps insisting on putting pro-corporate appointees in positions that effect the working men and women of this country - and their children - I also have to include him in the blame.

But, it should have had a proper sprinkler system.

We're not really arguing, btw. I'm just frustrated.

Hell, at least your state is on the blue uptake. Mine is still diving into ultra red-state hell (Tennessee).

the President. This kind of psychotic crap is proof otherwise.

Jesus, go the fuck away.

I have to thank you for your sincere compassion and empathy for our great state and her citizens.

Your statement is tells me a lot about you.

as was the Manson article , Blame photo offset printing but not the messenger in this case ----sure it's tasteless and tacky in a tasteless and tacky cruel world .

and continue the belief that all murderous monsters are brown and ugly.

Got it... that, unfortunately, does not work.

Losing a friend to a monster like that is terrible. I am sorry.

I want to know what we can do to stop this violent insanity... that is not our tried-and-true failed policy of utter denial out of respect for the victims. It does not work. The problem is getting worse.

the bomber's stupid pic on the cover of RS, she.

thankfully there are a lot of chains stores who decided not to help them sell their sensationalism.

Decision on facebook..

No one is required to buy it, read it, or sell it. Yet, everyone is free to do those things.

"Suppressing the press" happens here quite often.

My son works with a magazine merchandiser, and every store has told him to not even open the pack, to send it straight back. That just might have been the worst mistake that Rolling Stone ever made in the life of the magazine. We all love freedom of speech, but this pushed the envelope way to far. The decision may have rolled the mag right out of business, as a matter of fact.

I usually just do all my reading online but I've always liked Rolling Stone from way back and I would be extremely sorry to see them go, evidently they need some support, thanks for letting me know.

Eventually we'll be left with Fox News and the Wall Street Journal for all our news and opinion, perhaps then some people will be happy because *they* would certainly never do such a thing as put a terrorist on the cover.

And excuse me for opening my mouth and expressing my opinion.

Only because people are telling us we can't. We're all "freedomy" like that.

I've already read the article and found it fascinating.

Rolling Stone will be fine, they just got a shit ton of publicity. Even bad publicity is good for sales. Sorry, just the way the PR machine rolls.

Boston for many years banned films and literary works the local prigs deemed objectionable.
The following works were banned in Boston:
A Farewell To Arms, by Earnest Hemingway, banned in a magazine series.
The Children's Hour, by Lilian Hellman.
Waiting For Lefty, by Clifford Odets
Strange Fruit, by Lillian Smith (interracial love, banned)
Naked Lunch, by William S Burroughs
Wake Up, Little Susie, a song by the Everly Brothers

Here is a nice slideshow of things Boston found objectionable over the years:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/magazine/galleries/2010/8_8_10_banned_in_boston/

Some New England based business have decided not to sell it. You'll find someone willing to sell it, you just won't be able to buy it at those businesses that chose to support the victims of the bombing.