Dzhokharman

When the latest Rolling Stone landed in my mailbox last week, I was hit with a vague feeling of déjà vu. Or was it vújà de? As I mindlessly flipped through the mag, I still couldn’t shake it. What the hell? What’s bugging me? A couple of days later, I came across the now-infamous “Boston bomber” issue and there it was….plain as day. Dzhokhar and Dylan. Selfie vs. ”Self-Portrait.” Dzhokarman vs. “Jokerman.” Interchangeable, it would appear, to the good folks at Rolling Stone.

The furor over the Boston bomber’s cover is well-known: out of all of the photos available of this cold-blooded murderer, the magazine chose an angelic “selfie” that made him look like he could be in any band, any where. Sure, there were tons of damning photos that painted a more realistic picture — the one with the SWAT laser trained on his forehead is still chilling — but Rolling Stone went with the selfie.

"The fact that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is young, and in the same age group as many of our readers, makes it all the more important for us to examine the complexities of this issue and gain a more complete understanding of how a tragedy like this happens," the magazine’s original statement said.

Of course, this was after senior editor Christian Hoard tweeted "I guess we should have drawn a d*** on Dzhokhar's face or something?" The tweet was later deleted, and Hoard issued an apology the following day. Responses like that do little to reinforce the magazine’s position of  “long-standing commitment to serious and thoughtful” coverage of the important political and cultural issues of the day.

The RS article went on to assign blame to most everyone but the actual bomber, but it was a well-written and interesting read. It’s hard to tell what sort, if any, the "boy band” photo treatment of a terrorist had on the supporters, apologists and conspiracy theorists that have since sprung up, but it didn’t help — particularly if your audience is of an impressionable age and grew up in the shadow of 9/11, fake WMDs, and endless war. Add to that a healthy dose of political skepticism that, at one point, Rolling Stone spearheaded.

Which brings us, of course, to the current issue and its cover. If Tsarnaev is indeed the “age group” of the magazine’s constituency (a claim I highly doubt, at least in my interactions with twenty-something’s who are unsure what, exactly a “magazine” is…), then why a Dylan cover, from the period of one of his most-reviled albums? An album released forty-three years ago. An album that eminence grise critic Greil Marcus OPENED his review of with the question, “What is this shit?” (Oh...that review appeared in Rolling Stone magazine, in case you missed it, in 1970.) That particular cross-section of young readers, interested in a print magazine featuring Dzhokar AND a reissue of a forty-three year old album on the cover, must be one fascinating demographic, however miniscule.

Rolling Stone was once the cutting edge of counterculture, music and journalism. It represented a lifestyle and ideal that seems so far away now.  It’s apparent now that the singular goal is to sell magazines, in the same way that artists and works of art have become “product,” and albums have become “units.” The magazine has betrayed its roots and ideals in a way completely synonymous with the Wall Street greed that RS contributor Matt Taibbi rails about. I wonder if anyone, ANY ONE, at Rolling Stone stopped to consider the similarities of these two covers. Clearly, no one stepped forward to say “No. Not a good idea.”

Maybe it was coincidence — maybe more, maybe less — but at this point, that seems pretty irrelevant…

Meet the old boss. Same as the new boss.