How long should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get behind bars?

[katmai]

No he doesn't.

I dunno about you but I'm kind of an expert on gays so I respectfully disagree.

Being a closeted homosexual doesn't make you and expert Cal

[crazy canuck]

No he doesn't.

I dunno about you but I'm kind of an expert on gays so I respectfully disagree.

[garbon]

No he doesn't.

I dunno about you but I'm kind of an expert on gays so I respectfully disagree.

Being a closeted homosexual doesn't make you and expert Cal

Well I guess it could make him an expert on closet cases.

[lustindarkness]

We should bring back crucifixion.

[Valmy]

Wanna see my picture on the cover
Wanna buy five copies for my mother
Wanna see my smilin' face on:

Great song.

[jimmy olsen]

Pretty good, sure. I don't know about brilliant though.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2013/07/17/boston_bomber_rolling_stone_cover_with_dzokhar_tsarnaev_is_good_journalism.html

Rolling Stone's Boston Bomber Cover Is Brilliant

By Mark Joseph Stern
Posted Wednesday, July 17, 2013, at 4:16 PM

Rolling Stone has unveiled its next cover, featuring a dreamy photo of Boston bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, and many people have erupted in outrage. Some critics say the image depicts Tsarnaev as a kind of celebrity; others believe it turns him into a martyr. Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick called the cover "out of taste," while CVS has banned the issue "out of respect for the victims of the attack and their loved ones." A smaller chain of New England stores is also boycotting the magazine for "glorify[ing] evil actions." Never mind that the picture itself once appeared on the front page of the New York Times; when Rolling Stone uses it, they're "tasteless," "trashy," and "exploitative."

As the Washington Post's Erik Wemple points out, the image is exploitative—but it isn't just exploitative: It's also smart, unnerving journalism. By depicting a terrorist as sweet and handsome rather than ugly and terrifying, Rolling Stone has subverted our expectations and hinted at a larger truth. The cover presents a stark contrast with our usual image of terrorists. It asks, "What did we expect to see in Tsarnaev? What did we hope to see?" The answer, most likely, is a monster, a brutish dolt with outward manifestations of evil. What we get instead, however, is the most alarming sight of all: a boy who looks like someone we might know.

Judging from the article itself, the image is disconcertingly apt. The story, a two-month investigative report by Janet Reitman, tracks Tsarnaev's tragic, dangerous path from a well-liked student to a monster, focusing on the increasing influence of radical Islam. (The headline on the cover suggests as much; those immediately outraged by the picture might do well to read the accompanying text.) That slide from likable teenager to troubled murderer is a potent narrative—and not a new one. Time magazine profiled the Columbine shooters through a similar lens, calling them "the monsters next door" on their cover and asking, "What made them do it?"

Few people complained, however, when the Columbine shooters graced the cover of Time, perhaps in part because that magazine is devoted primarily to news, whereas Rolling Stone devotes more space to music and culture. And it's certainly true that Rolling Stone's cover is prime celebrity real estate; many forget that the late Michael Hastings' explosive piece on General Stanley McChrystal was tucked in an issue featuring Lady Gaga on the cover.

But Rolling Stone has published several other terrific works of journalism, and its editors have stood by their cover. And they are right to do so. They are not "glorifying" anyone. Whatever "glory" this cover brings is more in line with infamy than celebrity; after all, the text of the cover describes him as "the bomber" and "a monster." Yes, the editors were surely aware that Tsarnaev has attracted a bizarre fan base of young women professing their crushes and asserting his innocence. But it's ridiculous to assume that the magazine was playing off his strange cult following—an assumption we would never make for Time or the New York Times.

We may want the media to reconfirm for us that psychopaths are crazed, nutty, creepy recluses whom we can easily identify and thus avoid. But, as this cover reminds us, that simply isn't the case. Some psychopaths point guns at cameras; others snap selfies in T-shirts. As Tsarnaev's many friends could attest, we aren't as good as we'd like to believe at spotting the evil beneath the surface.

[11B4V]

Fucking Hippies.

[Sheilbh]

I'm not in favour of the death penalty, so I voted life without parole.

Same.

Sweet-looking?

He's a good looking guy.

I think that's an awful cover

[garbon]

Sweet-looking?

He's a good looking guy.

Some people's taste in men...

[Camerus]

Pretty good, sure. I don't know about brilliant though.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2013/07/17/boston_bomber_rolling_stone_cover_with_dzokhar_tsarnaev_is_good_journalism.html

Rolling Stone's Boston Bomber Cover Is Brilliant

By Mark Joseph Stern
Posted Wednesday, July 17, 2013, at 4:16

As the Washington Post's Erik Wemple points out, the image is exploitative—but it isn't just exploitative: It's also smart, unnerving journalism. By depicting a terrorist as sweet and handsome rather than ugly and terrifying, Rolling Stone has subverted our expectations and hinted at a larger truth. The cover presents a stark contrast with our usual image of terrorists. It asks, "What did we expect to see in Tsarnaev? What did we hope to see?" The answer, most likely, is a monster, a brutish dolt with outward manifestations of evil. What we get instead, however, is the most alarming sight of all: a boy who looks like someone we might know.

Give me a break. That paragraph is the very definition of pseudo-intellectual relativism (or perhaps just cynical marketing hucksterism) masquerading as profundity.

[KRonn]

This Rolling Stones story is being jumped on by everyone, stores refusing to sell the mag, people dropping their mag subscription. I hate the cover pic, makes the guy look too innocent but I guess that's the point of the story that tells of his slide into what he became. I don't think the story glorifies the guy, and it talks about how he became what he was. If so that's good to look into why he, or any person, becomes a radical type to the point of wanting to kill and carrying it out. But if the story is a fluff piece, putting a lot of blame on everyone and everything and less on the bomber and the radical ideology that creates such people, then screw RS.

[CountDeMoney]

Yeah, when even a leftie fruitfly like Lawrence O'Donnell totally trashes your ass, you've gone a bit off the cliff.

[Savonarola]

Pretty good, sure. I don't know about brilliant though.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2013/07/17/boston_bomber_rolling_stone_cover_with_dzokhar_tsarnaev_is_good_journalism.html

Rolling Stone's Boston Bomber Cover Is Brilliant

By Mark Joseph Stern
Posted Wednesday, July 17, 2013, at 4:16

As the Washington Post's Erik Wemple points out, the image is exploitative—but it isn't just exploitative: It's also smart, unnerving journalism. By depicting a terrorist as sweet and handsome rather than ugly and terrifying, Rolling Stone has subverted our expectations and hinted at a larger truth. The cover presents a stark contrast with our usual image of terrorists. It asks, "What did we expect to see in Tsarnaev? What did we hope to see?" The answer, most likely, is a monster, a brutish dolt with outward manifestations of evil. What we get instead, however, is the most alarming sight of all: a boy who looks like someone we might know.

Give me a break. That paragraph is the very definition of pseudo-intellectual relativism (or perhaps just cynical marketing hucksterism) masquerading as profundity.

Then it's an ideal story for Rolling Stone.

If I wrote the piece I'd make it into a Jihadist "Catcher in the Rye" and I'd call Dzhokhar "This Generation's Holden Caufield."

[Barrister]

Pretty good, sure. I don't know about brilliant though.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2013/07/17/boston_bomber_rolling_stone_cover_with_dzokhar_tsarnaev_is_good_journalism.html

Rolling Stone's Boston Bomber Cover Is Brilliant

By Mark Joseph Stern
Posted Wednesday, July 17, 2013, at 4:16

As the Washington Post's Erik Wemple points out, the image is exploitative—but it isn't just exploitative: It's also smart, unnerving journalism. By depicting a terrorist as sweet and handsome rather than ugly and terrifying, Rolling Stone has subverted our expectations and hinted at a larger truth. The cover presents a stark contrast with our usual image of terrorists. It asks, "What did we expect to see in Tsarnaev? What did we hope to see?" The answer, most likely, is a monster, a brutish dolt with outward manifestations of evil. What we get instead, however, is the most alarming sight of all: a boy who looks like someone we might know.

Give me a break. That paragraph is the very definition of pseudo-intellectual relativism (or perhaps just cynical marketing hucksterism) masquerading as profundity.

Then it's an ideal story for Rolling Stone.

If I wrote the piece I'd make it into a Jihadist "Catcher in the Rye" and I'd call Dzhokhar "This Generation's Holden Caufield."

But that's because you're the kind of person who writes Anne Franke furry slash fiction.

[katmai]

You say it like it's a bad thing?