Loathe it.

Making these goons into icons. Why don't they post Todd Beamers face instead.

Seriously, folks wonder why America has an obsession with darkness and death...

The reason they're stupid is they gave him a boy band cover shot. If they went with this there'd be some angry people at the article, but not nearly on a national scale

Here's the question... If it were a white man that did the bombing, and he was on the cover, would there be an outrage like this?

I don't think so.

If you visit the magazine's Facebook profile, for instance, you will see people are throwing incredibly dramatic bitch fits over this cover.

I find the controversy mystifying myself. The magazine has always covered political and social stories, not just music, and placement on the cover does not equal automatic glorification, particularly when said subject is directly described as a "monster." They put Charles Manson on the cover in 1970, for instance. I s'pose this is a disillusioning fact for many in America, but con men, murderers, religious radicals, war criminals, etc. and the questions raised by their existence are fascinating and therefore a natural subject for a magazine trying to move as many copies as they can to cover.

Well did you read the story, as look what the front page says, promising student failed by his parents...so is this true and fair?

It sure is a more provocative editorial choice than another cover focused on, say, the legacy of The Dark Side of the Moon.

Anyway, Boston is my hometown, but I can't seem to work up anything approaching outrage over this.

I'm bothered by the context of this. I mean, I realize his face has already been posted hundreds of thousands of times in news articles and such. But Rolling Stone fundamentally promotes rock stars/celebrity on its cover. It shouldn't be a magazine that his face is on the cover of.

I'm not outraged, certainly, I just don't think it was a very good idea.

and would you, if you knew someone that got hurt?