Iconic magazine getting it wrong

 

Rolling Stone was criticized heavily on social media for choosing the Boston bomber DZhokhar Tsarnaev as their cover.  The question is whether this is marketing gone wrong or good, investigative journalism.

Ever heard the saying that there is no such thing as bad publicity?  I think those days are over thanks to social media.  Consumers are able to share their opinions and show their disapproval. Every person engaged in social media has the ability to inflict real and long lasting damage to the image of a company.  It was evident that this topic was hot with 4465 people leaving comments, 2972 tweeting about it and 4.1k sharing it on Facebook.

 The general feeling on Twitter was that this decision of Rolling Stone elevates a criminal to stardom.  "Why not feature some of the survivors or the grieving families?" was the prevailing sentiment.  Some people felt so strongly about this, that they cancelled their subscription to the magazine.

Even before reading the article, I am bothered and puzzled by Rolling Stone's reaction.  I do not think that companies should sway to please their customers in every little way.  But let's face it, this is not a little way, this is an emotionally charged issue and an approach that most people find insensitive and downright insulting.  Rolling Stone defended the article with this statement:

Our hearts go out to the victims of the Boston Marathon bombing, and our thoughts are always with them and their families. The cover story we are publishing this week falls within the traditions of journalism and Rolling Stone’s long-standing commitment to serious and thoughtful coverage of the most important political and cultural issues of our day. The fact that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is young, and in the same age group as many of our readers, makes it all the more important for us to examine the complexities of this issue and gain a more complete understanding of how a tragedy like this happens. –THE EDITORS

My opinion was not swayed after reading the article.  It is written from a very sympathetic point of view.  I do agree that it is important to understand how a tragedy like this occurred, but using an angelic picture of the perpetrator and trying to get readers to identify with his struggles is hardly the way to achieve it.  I think you failed in your duty as journalists.  I think your marketing department failed in understanding your target market.  The only test that still remains is how your PR department will handle this?