First off, it should be noted that the Boston Herald broke this Rolling Stone story on page 3 of yesterday’s edition (don’t ask about the little green numbers – no idea why they keep popping up):
Today, the feisty local tabloid went for broke:
The one dissenting voice was columnist Margery Eagan, but she was drowned out by the other coverage, which included a couple of news reports and the always-enlightening comments of Herald readers.
Our personal favorite among the reader responses:
But wait – the paper’s not done yet. There’s also a smashmouth editorial, along with a venomous column from Michael Graham:
Magazine’s the picture of desperation
‘McDreamy’ photo won’t get oldies loser Rolling
Hey, Rolling Stone magazine! Next time you want to prove how provocative and edgy you are, put a flattering photo of George Zimmerman on your cover.
Right. Like that’s ever going to happen.
And that’s part of the reason for Boston’s completely righteous anger over the magazine’s “Terrorist Teen Beat” cover featuring Dzhokhar McDreamy. It’s insulting and stupid, and they know it.
But if it sells magazines (or even better — drives up Web traffic), they don’t care.
Sounds a bit like the Herald itself.
Crosstown rival Boston Globe has a more evenhanded debate on its front page:
There’s also a news report and this comme ci comme ça editorial:
[T]he magazine’s advance hype for the story — “a riveting and heartbreaking account of how a charming kid with a bright future became a monster” — hinted at a somewhat more sympathetic portrayal of Tsarnaev than many readers might expect.
Then again, the cover also identifies him as a bomber — going farther in asserting Tsarnaev’s guilt than the criminal justice system has at this point. All of which suggests that Rolling Stone is better at trying to create buzz than at recognizing the sensitivity of a recent incident that led to four Boston-area residents’ deaths and inflicted horrifying injuries on many more. Still, readers shouldn’t assume that a cover story about a suspected evildoer represents an attempt to glamorize him. This issue of Rolling Stone should be judged not by its cover, but on the information that it brings to the public record.
Well . . . judge for yourself.
[…] Read the rest at It’s Good to Live in a Two-Daily Town. […]
I find the most objectionable part of the Rolling Stone article the assumed guilt of the suspect. His family history is totally irrelevant if he did not commit the Boston bombing. He says he’s Not Guilty. Now it’s up to the police to provide some actual evidence. Because it looks very much like the FBI has gotten way too involved both before and after. There needs to be a deep investigation that goes a lot deeper than the suspect’s psychology but focuses on – did he or did he not plant the explosives? was he set up? why was he set up?
Listening to you speak on Radio Boston just now, I totally agree with you that the article is very biased toward the bomber and his friends. I have no idea why the author feels the need to take shots at Cambridge and Dartmouth during the article, or how his friends student loan status has any thing to do with why the helped him.
Reblogged this on Fingers dancing over the keyboard and commented:
As always one of the better Boston based bloggers out there.
Thanks, Jan. And thanks for the shoutout on the Radio Boston site. Much appreciated.