Rolling Stone Cover Boston Terrorist


Will you like the Boycott Rolling Stone Facebook page or do you think, as Rolling Stone says, they are trying to depict someone who is the modern rock fan’s age and are showing their readers how wrong an adolescent’s life can go?  The main argument by boycotters is that the victims should be on the cover, not the terrorist.  I definitely feel like it is kind of messed up “The Bomber” is on the cover, but I also am interested to see what story Rolling Stone will tell.  That may really put it into context.


  1. got to agree with you there Long Fellow, let’s see if anything changes before it prints Aug 3

  2. wewanttheworld says:

    Not only having a picture like that but choosing to run it is pathetic. Tactless from Rolling Stone, they’re out of touch with society and as I can only imagine in love with themselves because they think they’re some kind of literary royalty. I couldn’t be more proud that local businesses have opted to boycott the issue.

  3. Yeah, where do you even get a picture of the guy like that, pretty ridiculous

  4. wewanttheworld says:

    Rolling Stone sucks. They have for a long time, they lost their fastball and are just getting by on their name these days. This cover is too soon and tactless. The depiction of terrorist #2 as a dreamy rockstar sitting up against his bedframe and staring longingly into the camera is insensitive and a shameless outcry for attention. They want to be edgy and controversial, but shock value and sensationalist journalism are crossing the line. Trying to paint him as an innocent cherub who was swept up into this web of radical terrorism is inaccurate. He made his own decisions that led to the death of four people whom he had never met and were either doing their job or participating in the time honored tradition of watching the marathon runners go by. It was cowardly, brutal and real. He does not deserve one ounce of our attention, save that for the victims, their families and the first responders.