In the last week I have sat down and digested all the knee jerk reactionary responses I have read and heard about Rolling Stone and their controversial cover photo of Johar Tsarnaev. From the far far right to the near right of center; falsely perceived liberals, otherwise known as Obamacrats. I am confounded by the amount of attention being placed on a photo and while the old adage goes “A picture is worth a thousand words” in my humble opinion critics should use those thousand words wisely the next time they feel as if a people or person is errant in their actions. I have never heard or read more words of disdain and pure ignorant hate towards a thing from freedom loving men and women. People that I once held in high regard have relegated themselves to be no better than the slop poured out to feed filth covered swine.
The argument of the Rolling Stone opponents is so facile and laced with holes that if it said that they live in solidarity on a boat it would be named the HMS Titanic. “Do you want to die in a terrorist attack?” or “This only glorifies the attacker and will inspire copy cats. Is that what you want?” I do not know of any one sane logical being who would answer these trivial questions in the affirmative. That is like asking “Do you want to die in a lightning storm?” The only difference between the two questions is that one is more probable an occurrence than the other. Guess which one.
It seems as if now more than ever when America needs good journalism and I mean Socratic good not aesthetic goodness Rolling Stone has stepped up to the plate when the editors could just sit back and keep pushing cover articles of an irrelevant Pink Floyd, Snooki, George Clooney, Rihanna, Howard Stern, Steven Tyler, Elton John or a puff pieces listing the top 100 guitarist or Hip-Hop artist of all time, granted the latter is something they still do and should do because THEY’RE A MUSIC MAGAZINE!!! It is a sad day when the world is taking journalism lessons from Rolling Stone Magazine the same people who put up South Park on their cover in 1998. Just as it is sad for televised news to be taught lessons on the ethics of journalism by a comedian whose lead in shows are a cartoon that often features a talking piece of pooh and a bunch of puppets making prank phone calls.
I feel bad for anyone who gets distracted by an image. Its speaks to their character, the lack of moral fiber leaves me downtrodden. To suggest censoring anyone in the name of stop-loss is as egregious as embracing the erosion of our constitutional right to privacy to prevent internal attacks. As if they in their diminished ability to comprehend the most simplistic of unalienable truths; our right to freedom of the press, cannot justify, legitimize or embrace sedition to try to prevent a death which is but a guaranteed foregone conclusion.
The only thing a man is guaranteed is his death it is in his living to protect the rights of man that will define his life.
The argument of my opponents is contrived even redundant. For those who boast patriotism and love of freedom to attack expression or even the press is paramount to using the Bill of Rights as toilet paper. Rights are not interpreted. The protection of rights has no expiration date. It is a redundant position because time and time again we have been pushed to this social precipice where the rabble rousers have called upon the masses to rally behind fascist rally cries and welling meaning men and women of zeal have responded to the call without taking a second to think what they are being asked to champion.
As I look at the magazine covers of the past I am only saddened by the fact that so many of the publications I read no longer produce content which is thought-provoking. The question that should be asked is not whether Rolling Stone should have published that cover, because they were completely in the right, but what is so important that lies between the cover page and the back page that provoked the powers that be to attack a music magazine that realized someone needs to do the news.