Position Paper on Rolling Stone Article

Rolling Stone Article Review :

The July Rolling Stone Article Entitled “The Bomber” portraying Dzhokahr Tsarnaev on the cover as somewhat of a “Glorified” man, described by many, sparked a large collective of controversy and also many mixed reactions such as positive, negative, and speechless reactions article wise as well as cover wise too. Many of these reactions could be justified in many ways such as the negative ones.

The article stirred up a lot of controversy. Many people believed that the article was making Tsarnaev seem like somewhat of a victim from what the cover implies. It states “How a popular, promising student was failed by his family, fell into radical Islam and became a monster.” They state that his family was the group of people that supposedly “Failed” him other than saying he failed himself from the actions he had committed. People thought the cover statement was making it seem like it was not Dzhokahrs fault. They also describe Jahar in many positive ways such as “Charming”, “Pillow soft kid”, and “That kid you could always just vibe with” and “So sweet.”

Others on the other hand, believed it was necessary for all this information to be told. Many said it was the right thing to do because it showed the transition Dzhokahr went from a “Promising” kid to a “Monster” and a terrorist, previous to the fatal Boston Marathon Bombings. To them, the story was implying the truth of Jahars life before and after the event. People wanted to know how he actually was like and they used friends, family, and close people to him to answer all of that. But, not getting the poor victims point of views, thoughts, and comments is what bothered people as well. It was all about Dzhokahr Tsarnaev.

In my opinion, Tsarnaev being enshrined on the cover wasn't the brightest thing to do. They could’ve put a headline about Dzhokahr but I feel like enshrining him on the cover was a little too far. And Rolling Stone also used all these nice ways to describe him as if he were a sweet innocent victim of his own family which they are not to be blamed besides his own brother. They didn’t use much negative comments which was what most people probably expected. I don’t like what the headline implies with the “Family” being the ones to blame. Rolling Stone Magazine made the readers dwell on the life of the killer rather than the victims and their families. He failed himself and became what he had become himself with his terroristic actions that shocked the globe.