thrill that'll getcha when you get your picture on the cover of the rollin'stone

the rolling stone has been in the business of controversy since its inception  in november of 1967.
with writers like hunter s. thompson and caroline kennedy its musical roots have definitely transformed into a political soapbox, its been used as a platform to discuss controversial topics like sex drugs and rock and roll. the covers have pictured images of rock stars, politicians, presidents and even criminals.



in 1972dr. hook and the medicine show landed themselves on the cover with shel silversteins song "cover of the rolling stone."

john lenon and yoko ono made waves with their iconic cover in 1980.taken by annie leibovitz this photo was taken the same night john lenon died.

 in 1970, just three years into the magazines run, they gained national attention for their cover interview with none other than charles manson. their prison interview with manson won them an national magazine award.
their latest edition is not immune to controversy.
the august 1st edition of the rolling stone's cover has been plastered
all over the news and internet, you'd just about have to live under a rock at the bottom
of the mariana trench to have missed it. and it hasnt even been released yet.
the august edition features the picture of dzhokhar tsarnaev (probably didnt spell that correctly),
who is the man being held responsible for the boston marathon bombing.

the controversy is not necessarily that he is on the cover.
its the way he is being portrayed on the cover.
some critics have described his photo as a glamor shot.
this depiction of him is unsettling to the general public.
this man in the eyes of many is a monster.
and here he looks human, attractive even.
surely this is not the face of someone capable of that.
some one capable of that, they're dirty and hideous
and have sharp teeth and crazy eyes.
someone who would do that surely is long lost from humanity.
we want our monsters to look monstrous.
and he doesnt. he looks like any other young kid his age.
scruffy face, unruly hair, but clean and well taken care of.
he could be anyone's brooding college age son, brother, nephew, or grandson.
its easy to forget that he is.
its easy to forget the evil humans are capable of.
we are more frightening than the darkest nightmare king or lovecraft could conjure.

the magazine has already received a lion's share of backlash from the critics and families of the victims. and they have every right to their own opinions but the rolling stone isnt doing anything different. anything unpatriotic or cruel. their intention was to strike a cord with their audience and in that they have certainly succeeded.. they are using controversy as it is intended to be used.
to start a conversation. the subject of the bombing is one that hits home for many.
but if we were an honest nation we would admit, many but not all.
it takes the giant hands of controversy to reach down and shake us into reality.
in the world that we live in, we are numb.
tragedies happen so frequently we scarcely take the time to process them.
less and less the question is asked "what will i tell my children?"
we dont need to tell our children what has happend.
they already know. or they think they do.
they think its just another reality show
a  real life csi crime adventure.
this is the generation raised in the nursery of the veldt .
this is why we need controversy.
this is why we need the rolling stone.