Readers React to Rolling Stone Cover of Accused Boston Bomber

Written by Valerie Engler

By now, you’ve seen the cover. The July edition of Rolling Stone sports a self portrait of the accused Boston bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.

By now, you’ve seen the local reaction. Drug stores, like Oakdale's Walgreens, say they will not carry the magazine, in a protest of sorts.

But we want to know: Will you, personally, protest the racey editorial decision? A Nashua Patch blogger said that he intends to boycott the “advertisers of Rolling Stone magazine.”

On Thursday, we asked Oakdale residents what they thought about the magazine cover. Here's what they had to say on the Oakdale Patch Facebook page and from our previous story: 

• Jeannie: I normally don't agree with banning magazines, books, etc, after all people don't have to buy it, but in this case I support cvs and Walgreens 100%. As for my thoughts on Rolling Stone magazine, lets just say my opinion of them isn't Facebook appropriate. 
• Sara: wouldn't mind so much if there was an article in this magazine that covered the story, HOWEVER, the picture chosen for the cover is absolutely disrespectful in that he looks like a model...not a murderer! Sick, just sick! I would have rather seen a picture of him all bloody, laying in the boat where they found him!
• Jim: Companies can do what they want but overall it's a really dumb choice. Terrorists have been on magazine covers for as long as they've both been around. The problem in this case is that people for some odd reason don't view Rolling Stone as a serious news reporting magazine. If he was an ugly, turban wearing, angry looking stereotypical terrorist, there would be no problem. Just google terrorists magazine covers, no boycotts for any of those.
• Eric: I do not understand the pulling of this magazine from the shelves. First, I admit I have not read the entire article. But based on the cover and tagline alone, I see no need for censorship by these retailers. Every media outlet, whether it be online, in print, radio, or TV uses some amount of drama and sensationalism as part of their reporting (not to mention their marketing). Again, based on the cover line, it does not appear to be an insensitive or unsympathetic article. Since when does the face of a murderer deserve censorship? We've seen it for years...Osama, Amin, Lee Harvey Oswald, etc. Heck, look at some of Time Magazines past "people of the year". Some pretty controversial ones over the decades.
  One has to wonder....if the news media already puts a certain "slant" on their stories (my assumption), and now retailers censor the media, then how will the public ever get accurate truthful news? And finally--in a country where capitalism works pretty well, we all have an option. If we are all appalled by the Rolling Stone article, we have the option to simply not buy the magazine. If it happens enough, they will go out of business. Problem solved. Similarly, if I continue to be dissatisfied with the performance and posturing of Walgreen's and CVS, I will choose to buy my H&B and prescriptions elsewhere. Problem solved.
  

Do you have an opinion about the cover? Will you stop buying the magazine? Will you stop going to the stores that sell it? 

Tell us what you think by starting a board post or starting a blog. Your thoughts matter to your community, and to us. Share them freely on Patch.

If you're interested in more information on starting a blog on Patch, email hannah.gruber@patch.com

For updates and other information about the community, join us on Patch, Like us on Facebook and follow Oakdale Patch on Twitter.