Rolling Stone’s Boston bomber cover stirs firestorm

[puckstopshere]

An image of a young man with messy hair, wide eyes and a look of innocence about him on the cover of the August issue of Rolling Stone has created widespread controversy.

The face belongs to Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, a suspect in the bombing at the Boston marathon in April that killed three and injured more than 260 others.

If you didn’t know who he was, you’d think he was a guitar player in a boy band, not someone who pleaded not guilty last week to 30 counts associated with the bombing.

Reactions on social media have been harsh from those who feel Tsarnaev looks like a rock star, and wrongly glorifies a man who is being tried on very serious charges.

“Kill an 8-year-old, land on the cover of Rolling Stone,” Brian Ries, senior editor at Newsweek tweeted.

Comedian Rob Delaney tweeted “@RollingStone which #teen sensation will grace your cover next?”

“Rolling Stone you should be ashamed,” Boston-based band Dropkick Murpheys tweeted. “How about one of the courageous victims on your cover instead of this loser scum bag!”

Even people who have supported Tsarnaev are upset with the cover, saying the headline -- “The Bomber” -- isn’t fair, nor is the text that accompanies the headline which calls him a “monster.”

Members of fangirl groups who think Tsarnaev is “hot” have staunchly defended his innocence.

One supportive fan tweeted “What kinda monsters put a 19yr old SUSPECT on their mag cover slandering his name for money?”

A Facebook page called Boycott Rolling Stone Magazine for their latest cover has garnered over 20,000 likes, and the hashtag #BoycottRollingStone is gaining steam on Twitter.

Rolling Stone magazine posted a preview for the story which includes five revelations that the magazine’s contributing editor Janet Reitman found while researching.

“Jahar never spoke about 9/11. Once, though, he let slip to a high school friend that he thought the terrorist attacks could be justified, and pointed to US policies towards Muslim countries and US drone strikes and other attacks as his rationale,” one of them reads.

Another was that his brother, Tamerlan, who died during a shootout with police after the bombing, told his mother that “he felt like two people were inside him.”

Another that religion was very important to Tsarnaev.

The preview says Reitman spent the past two months interviewing people close to Tsarnaev, including friends, teachers and neighbours.

While the profile looks intriguing, few people can get past the cover.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/the-hot-button/rolling-stones-boston-bomber-cover-stirs-firestor...

[prior-of-verity*shake-hands-with-your-devil]

Well Hitler was Man of the Year and on the cover of Time magazine.

[art-in-the-making]

The most amazing thing about this incident is the fertilizer plant explosion near Waco, Texas that occurred within a day or two of this incident.

This incident was similar in scope to the Lac Megantic tragedy in Canada. 13+ dead and hundreds of injured.

It is a virtual certainty that the incident would have been completely preventable if proper safety precautions had been taken by the fertilizer company.

So:

Waco was by far the more serious incident yet Boston garnered what, 100X the media coverage?

Even now, it is quite difficult to find definitive information about the causes and details of the Waco explosion, or results of any investigation? Please post if you find it - I didn't readily find anything.

What is wrong with this picture?

[prior-of-verity*shake-hands-with-your-devil]

What is wrong with this picture?

Well Waco doesn't make money or help politicians. Boston does both in spades.

I do feel sorry for Waco, it seems to have a lot of problems.

As for the fertilizer company, well most of the workers were probably Mexican and maybe many were undocumented, so no one is going to say much or investigate much to open up that can of worms! 

[puckstopshere]

Waco was by far the more serious incident yet Boston garnered what, 100X the media coverage?

One would hope the difference is simple. 

Boston was a planned intentional act designed to kill or maim as many people as possible.

Waco was an accident.

Personally, I don't believe in accidents.  Usually accidents are the result of neglect or carelessness on the part of a person or persons. 

Very few accidents are not preventable.

The management of the plant in Waco may have had the ability to prevent the accident from happening, but they did not deliberately act to make the accident happen.   This is a fine line.  If shortcuts were taken to cut costs and save money in Waco, they may have resulted in the blast.  I am of the opinion that this is probably true.  Management are probably guilty of a criminal act and hopefully will have to pay for that. 

I have worked in industrial environments where safety and the ability to continue operation must be balanced.  I once had a work refusal (the end result cost the company over $250,000 in changes to equipment).  The bottom line was that the employees wanted us to safeguard them from their own stupid actions.  They wanted an environment where they could not possibly get hurt - no matter how careless or stupid they were.  My initial reaction was - I can do that.  When asked how (by the union), I said that I would padlock the front gate.  No one gets in - no one gets hurt. 

Safety is the responsibility of everyone!!!!

[puckstopshere]

Some background on Waco (from Google):

West Fertilizer Company has supplied chemicals to farmers since it was founded in 1962; as of 2013[ it is owned by Adair Grain, Inc.

The plant was last inspected by OSHA in 1985. At the time, according to records obtained by the Associated Press, OSHA cited the plant for improper storage of anhydrous ammonia and fined it $30; OSHA could have imposed a fine of as much as $1,000. OSHA also cited the plant for violations of respiratory protection standards, but did not issue fines.

After a complaint in 2006 about an ammonia smell coming from the facility, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality investigated and cited the operator for not having obtained a permit for its two storage tanks containing anhydrous ammonia. A permit was issued once the operators brought the facility into accord with the regulations and recommendations made by the agency.

According to an open records request by Reuters, the plant had a long history of thefts, mostly by people wanting to use the anhydrous ammonia on site to make methamphetamine. Despite this, the plant had no security guards or burglar alarms, and didn't even have a surveillance system until 2009.

At the time of the explosion, the facility had a permit to store nearly 54,000 pounds of anhydrous ammonia. Despite this, company officials filed an emergency planning report with the EPA stating there was no fire risk or explosion hazard involved at the plant.

According to a filing with the EPA in late 2012, the company stated that it stored 540,000 pounds of ammonium nitrate and 110,000 pounds of anhydrous ammonia on the site. However, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told Senate investigators that the company hadn't disclosed its ammonium nitrate stock to her department. Federal law requires the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to be notified whenever anyone has more than 1 ton of ammonium nitrate on hand, or 400 pounds if the ammonium nitrate is combined with combustible material.

[prior-of-verity*shake-hands-with-your-devil]

Boston was a planned intentional act

Was it? International.

[puckstopshere]

International.

I said intentional - not international. 

My eyes aren't what they used to be, either.

[prior-of-verity*shake-hands-with-your-devil]

It's not the eyes on this end. It's the sweat.........being outside, coming in for cold water and a moment in air conditioning, eyes are full of grit and then trying to scan paragraphs in a hurry.

[art-in-the-making]

Personally, I don't believe in accidents.  Usually accidents are the result of neglect or carelessness on the part of a person or persons. 

Very few accidents are not preventable.

That was my point, too.

This Waco situation was buried and Boston was blown vastly out of proportion, especially the way they handled it shutting down the city, etc. In the Waco case, the guilty parties presumably remain upstanding community members. Even though the plant owners specificly put the lives of workers in mortal danger just to increase their own personal profit. I just can't get my head around it.