Rolling Stone

Dear Rolling Stone,

I know you've made a name for yourself pushing the envelope. You've chosen cover photos meant to create rumblings and mumblings. Well, you've succeeded again.

Only this time I think you've gone too far. The typical Rolling Stone cover usually consists of less clothing especially from the 18-30 range. I do commend you for refraining from photo editing the photo so he'd be shirtless. I'm glad to see you still possess some restraint. However, I don't believe your choice of cover photo is getting your point across.

Let me tell you. I haven't read the story. I have no desire after seeing the cover to read the story. It could be the most mind-altering story I'd ever read, but I won't read it. I refuse to even read it online because I will not support your decision.

If your desire was to showcase the other side of the story for a hate-filled terrorist, then I would suggest that perhaps you fire your marketing people and start over. I might have been interested had your cover featured someone that I wanted to read about. I might have even taken a moment to think about the point you were trying to make.

Let me tell you what cover stories I would have wanted to read:

• the story of a 911 operator working on 4/15-4/19.
• the thoughts of an American soldier who is fighting for our freedom overseas and watching the lock down of Boston as terror invades our streets
• the story of a Dunkin' Donuts worker who served  Boston's finest during the manhunt
• the countless heroes of 4/15 who came to the rescue of others by offering their WiFi, blankets, shelter, water, directions.
• the facts from the officer who arrived on the scene where Officer Collier was executed
• the stories of officers who delivered milk, bread, etc to residents shut in
• the doctors and nurses who worked the ER
• the crew who cleaned up the street after the crime scene tape came down

I'm sure there are many other ideas out there. Many other cover stories that would have created enough interest for you to be relevant again. Instead you created controversy in the hopes of making a few dollars. 

The last thing we need to do is spotlight the despicable actions of someone who chose to slaughter innocent people. If you wanted to create empathy, sympathy, or pity for a murderer then don't glorify him. It isn't worth mentioning his name. His actions were those of a coward. Whether he was a lemming following in his brother's footsteps or a mastermind, he isn't worthy of a photo on the front of your magazine as if he is the next Justin Bieber or Timberlake. 

Why do good children go bad? I hear that is the theme of the story. Well, it could be that an overlooked child sees the fame and notoriety that evil is awarded and they seek out their fifteen minutes. It may be that the bullied want to shed light on their situation and they go to extremes. It may be that adults take the irresponsible path and excuse bad decision making because of their circumstances. Could it be that rather than holding someone accountable we cover them in excuses and ploy on the sympathetic nature of many? 

I think we need to stop good publications from going bad by holding them accountable for their actions instead of allowing sympathetic minds to excuse their behavior.  Rolling Stone, you made the wrong choice. I don't believe you are evil at the core, but you made a poor decision and it is time for you take responsibility for that decision, apologize to those you've offended, and learn from your mistake.

Sincerely, 

ME