After all the news about firefighters and fire fights, of Cabinet members leaving and defendants walking, of celebrity falls and plane crashes, you knew that the national media would soon get back to the nonsense. And what was bothering the chattering class last week?
A picture on the front of a long-forgotten magazine. The editors at Rolling Stone decided to feature one of the Boston bombers on its cover last week-the surviving one. And once again the commentariat was asking, Why? Our best guess: To make a splash. Because, with an occasional exception, Rolling Stone hasn’t attracted much attention in years.
When was the last time you thought about Rolling Stone? But back in the day, that magazine set the standard, or at least helped create some fads. For awhile there its reporting on the musical scene was must-read material for a certain demographic. But the last time we remember picking up a copy was back when P.J. O’Rourke was its token Republican on the payroll-but he hasn’t worked there in years, not full-time anyway. So says the internet. Again, few people may know for sure. Who reads the thing anymore?
Would anybody be talking about the magazine today if it had featured just another shot of a pouting Justin Bieber on its cover?
Answer: Not likely. Which may be why the editors decided to go in a less musical direction in the latest issue. Maybe on the theory that any publicity is good publicity.
But it’s a shame it had to happen to a magazine that used to feature John Lennon on its covers.
Editorial, Pages 10 on 07/22/2013