I've been an outspoken
critic of all the anger directed at Rolling Stone Magazine the past few days,
and received a few angry responses because of it. Well, how about a
forgotten tool: context. For about a week I didn't know that my family was
affected. Then I learned that my uncle works with, and is friends with
Martin Richard's father. How close are they? He was standing near
the finish line between the blasts with his family. My cousins have been
afflicted with PTSD because they were part of the carnage. So anyone that
thinks I'm being insensitive because it hasn't touched my life, go fuck
yourself.
With that said, let's move
on to the issue at hand, a magazine cover. Rolling Stone contributor
Janet Reitman set out to write an article about Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and the
events leading up to bombing to give some context to a person who has been the
subject of immense speculation. This boy was a typical immigrant resident
of Cambridge, as typical as you can be in one of the most diverse cities in the
country. I read the 11,000 word article and came away with almost the
same feeling I did when I started, uncertainty. Reitman doesn't
romanticize him or appeal for pity. She sifted through everything that
was said about him during the 24/7 news cycle following the bombing and got
access to his friends (which were given pseudonyms, because even being associated
with Tsarnaev will garner hatred). And still questions remain about who
this boy is, because who he was no longer is important.
Apparently, Boston's mayor
was advised to release a statement regarding the magazine cover that spread
like wildfire through social media. People were quick to like and share
it on Facebook to raise awareness about the evil thing Rolling Stone was doing.
Except that he incorrectly states "though we can't know because
almost all you released is the cover." That's blatantly false.
Rolling Stone has the entire article available, for free, on their
website. But once people saw that Menino had issued a statement
admonishing the publication they clicked a link instead of reading it, just
like when they saw the picture of Tsarnaev and got upset without reading a FREE
article. More than 140 characters? Ain't nobody got time for that!
Maybe they could have
chosen a less sexy image of this accused terrorist. Maybe they could have
done a tribute to the victims instead. Maybe you should ask Bill Richard
what he thinks. Wait, don't. The one bit of information my uncle offered regarding the situation is that the 8-year old's father doesn't
want you to talk to him about it. Every mention of his child is a twist
of the knife, salt in a gaping wound that will likely never heal. What do
you think putting a picture of his boy on a publication that has a paid
circulation of about 1.5 million would be like? Think about it.
But that's my point, stop
and think about it. Read, listen, consume, then stop, shut the fuck up,
and think. We are exposed to so much media and information that we rarely
allow ourselves to process it. Thus removing its value. As our
access to information grows at an exponential rate its worth is vanishing just
as fast. My hope is that you read this post and it elicited emotions.
Read it again, and see if you feel the same way. Talk with someone
about it. I don't care if that conversation begins with "did you
read that asshole's blog post, what a piece of shit." As long as you
attempt to gather as much context as you can and approach it in a calm analytic
manner. Otherwise you're acting on raw, unbridled emotion. Which is
the most effective tool of terrorism.
