This week saw the release of the Rolling Stone’s Magazine cover with the article about the alleged terrorist. The cover has created outrage across Massachusetts and many in other parts of the country, as well. My question: Why not a Rolling Stones Cover featuring the HEROES of the Boston Marathon? The magazine could still have an article (if they wanted one) on how the young man became a monster on the INSIDE of the magazine. If anything, they could put a picture of the alleged bomber into a small insert on the cover, alluding to an article within. I tried to show what, in my opinion, the cover could look like if the editors were more concerned about the feelings of the 300 plus victims and the people of Boston– if they were more concerned with glorifying the HEROES of that day, rather than the alleged terrorist. I want to note that I have just finished the article and I found it to be insightful and valuable in understanding how this young man became an (alleged) murderous bomber, though I found the portrayal to be a bit overly-sympathetic. My point is not that they should not have written the article–only that their choice for the cover was a poor one. What do you think?
Note: Thanks to John Tlumacki, David L. Ryan, Darren Mccollester, and Bill Greene for the photos of the heroes–which I combined into a collage.