Rolling Stones is Mud

Samuel Khokhlan

Journalism

Rolling Stones controversy: Journalistic Perspectives

         

            Rolling Stones recent release of its extremely controversial article titled "The Bomber" has stirred much controversy with their July release featuring none other than the infamous Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.  Dzhokhar, or Jahar's recent celebrity status involving the Rolling Stones article has left a bad taste in the mouths of many of its readers. Writer Janet Reitman clearly defends Jahar, the boy terrorist, throughout her article. This is wrong and distasteful, as displayed by the rising outrage in readers.

            Reitman displays Jahar as an average kid with exceptional characteristics. "Jahar to his friends -as a beautiful, tousle-haired boy with a gentle demeanor, soulful brown eyes and kind of shy." (Reitman 1). Reitmans description could have been used in a job interview promoting Jahar. The writer takes attention off the fact that Jahar made a willing decision to bomb innocent by standers in the name of his cause by focusing the reader's attention on how much of an "average" guy he was. I mean heck! He even smoked pot! What a great guy. Rolling Stones lowered the bar by including this article in their July release. Any writer that finds it necessary to include the fact that a terrorist smoked marijuana every other sentence should consider a career in something other than writing. How can this point even be argued. Normal people don't commit such atrocious acts of violence against their fellow man.

            Rolling Stones has reached a new low through their insensitive, reckless release of the July article. "You know what's even more heartbreaking? How Rolling Stones can even think about turning an alleged murderer into a rock star by plastering his "soulful brown eyes"." (Rasmussen 1). Rolling Stones not only takes a position backing up Jahar. They go even further by making excuses for him. If Jahar didn't have such handsome features. Or such a charismatic personality. Or maybe if he hadn't been such a relatable guy, would they still take this ridiculous position in defending him? I think no. "Sgt Sean Murphy.. was described as furious about the Rolling Stones cover."(Carr 1). You probably made a mistake when you offend the Police officers responsible for taking down Tsarnaev.

            The article released by Rolling Stones was nothing but some sad attempt at defending one of the most brutal attacks on Bostonian citizens ever. It not only shamed them, but allowed for Jahar to be seen in a light that he should not be remembered in. Jahar and his brother committed horrendous acts on innocent people. 3 were killed, one of which was an eight year old child. By attempting to make excuses for Jahar, Rolling stones tarnished their credibility as a Magazine company, and disrespected those involved in the tragic incident that took place on that day. It should be common sense in our modern day that this is not an acceptable thing to do. In the name of writing people are releasing a bunch of garbage to influence the people of America. It is simply ridiculous.