- Cuba Gooding Jr.- Terrence Howard
Saturday, August 10, 2013
Thursday, August 8, 2013
Dzhokahr Tsarnaev and the Sorcerer’s Stone
Dzhokahr Tsarnaev and
the Sorcerer’s Stone
Rolling Stone, an entertainment and
music magazine, published a cover story many in America have deemed despicable
and insensitive, with a photo depicting Dzhokar Tsarnaev in a positive and “rock
star”-like image. People in a free
market system determine if a product is worthy of sale. With over one million subscribers, Rolling Stone is seen as worthy by a
large segment of the American population.
Many others, though, have decided not to subscribe to the publication,
and they have every right to do so. Is Rolling Stone so systematically
important to the American public’s way of life that if its existence were to cease,
American journalism would collapse?
Probably not, but the point still stands that over one million people
have decided to pay a price for the publication.
So what
does Rolling Stone owe to the general
public? As a paid magazine owned wholly
by a private enterprise, they owe absolutely nothing. They only need to satisfy
the subscribers who paid to receive the magazine. Why, then, have people made such a
commotion? Perhaps it is
justified. The event in which Dzhokar
was allegedly involved was a public event.
It tragically took American citizens’ lives and has opened a public
security can of worms. It was a terrible and unnecessary act of terrorism. Yet, it is still Rolling Stone’s prerogative, protected by the First Amendment, to
report the news in any way it pleases under the written law. As long as all information was collected
legally, is in fact true, and is not a threat to national security, then the
U.S. government ought not to have a hand in the business of Rolling Stone.
Rolling Stone, originally conceived as a
magazine to report on the music industry, has in recent years tried to change
its image, and in some cases has succeeded.
An example would be in June of 2010, when Rolling Stone reported on General Stanley McChrystal’s criticism of
the White House, specifically Vice President Joe Biden, among others on Capitol
Hill. General McChrystal later
resigned. Still, has the magazine gone
too far this time? Kristen Powers of Newsweek and The Daily Beast sure thought so, calling the piece “terrible” and
“kind of sick” while commentating on Bill O’Reilly’s The O’Reilly Factor. Mr. O’Reilly
conjectured that they did it merely for publicity, which of course they
received in full.
This
issue has proved polarizing, however, as the New York Times editorial board has taken a different point of view,
saying in jest that the “hysteria” must have been “heat-wave induced.” In
actuality, the New York Times defended
Rolling Stone’s journalistic
integrity. One website, Slate.com, a news site owned by the
Washington Post Company, went as far as to call it “brilliant,” which was
perceived by some as going too far left on the political spectrum.
It will be up to the consumer to
decide if what Rolling Stone did it
is worthy of a read. Many national
brands such as CVS and Walgreens, both pharmacies, have decided to not carry
this particular issue, and as private enterprises, they have every right to do
so. One Boston resident even went so far
as to call for a mass burning of the magazine.
While that would clearly help sales, his sentiment is duly noted. Perhaps
many view it as a moral issue rather than seeing it as a freedom of the press
issue. Does Rolling Stone have a moral obligation, or does it have the right to
print as they see fit in order to be profitable?
Friday, July 5, 2013
- David Gregory, NBC
- Chris Fowler, ESPNTuesday, February 5, 2013
Friday, January 25, 2013
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)