The latest edition of Rolling Stone magazine features the the surviving Boston bombing suspect on the cover.
At first glance, he could be one of the scruffy-faced rock stars that usually inhabit that space. But no, he's just a run of the mill, scum-sucking dirtbag who killed and/or maimed a bunch of innocents in his quest for fame.
Regardless of the appropriateness of Rolling Stone's editorial decision, what fascinates me is the reaction from other media. Every outlet I follow on Facebook, from CNN and ABC to local stations in Chicago, Kansas City and other parts of the country, is asking how people feel about that RS cover.
Let's see if I have this right. The media (especially CNN...the network that darn near reported every time hospital officials changed his bed linen) that made the jerkwad a superstar by repeating his name and endlessly displaying his image in video and stills in the weeks after the bombings now wants to know our reaction to giving him even more attention? And by asking the question, they're undoubtedly jacking up sales of the issue far beyond what they would be otherwise.
Next will come the indignant, finger-shaking rebukes from the babbling heads who couldn't wait to get on the air to talk about him the first time.
And so...the cycle begins again.
Which is, I'm sure, just what Rolling Stone intended.
Of course, I'm also indignantly writing about him. And you're reading about him.
What's that say about us?
No comments:
Post a Comment