Carmen Rasmusen Herbert: Decision to glorify bomber is what's truly 'heartbreaking'

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • UTAH Bill Salt Lake City, UT
    July 23, 2013 8:16 p.m.

    Carmen should have read the article. It does not "glorify" the bomber at all.

  • albertinamel REDMOND, WA
    July 23, 2013 2:45 p.m.

    It's insulting to people who actually analyze the world with any degree of nuance that a so-called "journalist" like Herbert can't acknowledge that the human condition is worth exploring, including that of people who do terrible things. If we stop such introspection, we become merely a bunch of mindless, knee-jerk ideologues who simply brand everyone with a "righteous" or "unrighteous" label. That's the point of the RS article.

    To those who herald the officer for revealing the photos, I can only assume you also laud people like Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden, and Julian Assange, right? Though I condone the actions of none of them, the actions of the police officer seem particularly rash and idiotic b/c the only thing that ticked him off was a piece in a rock 'n' roll magazine, rather than something weightier, like wars that cost trillions of dollars of hundreds of thousands of lives. Seriously? It's probably a good thing he's on desk duty. Somone w/that level of rashness shouldn't be on patrol and armed. I can't imagine what it would be like to actually be married to someone so thin-skinned. Yikes!

  • amishjim PITTSBURGH, PA
    July 23, 2013 1:48 p.m.

    It's a shame that the author had her own dreams of ever being in Rolling Stone smashed. So, I guess her bitterness shines through here. How about we do some free thinking instead of bouncing on the bandwagon. This article was truly heartbreaking. I think the author should stick to Smurf movies and smores recipes, safe topics, because such a serious topic is beyond her skill level so far.

  • Freonpsandoz Los Angeles, CA
    July 23, 2013 1:45 p.m.

    Rolling Stone said that it used an unmodified photo from Tsarnaev's social media postings. Carmen asserts that the photo was modified to make Tsarnaev look more appealing. Where is her evidence for this assertion? Rolling Stone put Charles Manson on its cover, and that didn't generate the kind of reaction that Carmen and others like her have to this article and photo. The difference is due to the fact that people like Carmen need everything to be black and white, with no confusing shades of grey. Most especially, a terrorist must be 100% evil and must look the part, with no sympathy-inducing qualities whatsoever. The Dzhokhar Tsarnaev article and picture don't fulfill that expectation, so many Americans cannot accept them and need to banish them from their sight.

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    July 23, 2013 1:20 p.m.

    So, did he buy five copies for his mother? (betraying my age)

    Seriously, the value of the cover photo is that it decouples the subconscious linkage between evil soul and evil face. We are constantly presented with media images that depict evil people as ugly, horrid monsters. In fiction, think Disney's evil cartoon stepmothers, Voldemort in the Harry Potter films, any of a parade of villains and thugs in Spiderman, Batman, Superman strips and films, and the passengers on Con Air. In the real world, the lean, hirsute, hollow face of Osama bin Laden and the severe part and cropped mustache of Adolph Hitler are synonymous with the face of evil. The reality is different. Not all thugs come from Central Casting. Not all robbers wear striped shirts and black masks (think how easy it would be to arrest them if they did!). Sometimes evil, or a perpetrator thereof, is pretty. even beautiful.

    When I was a kid, the safety booklets in school warning against abduction featured creepy men in cars. No one would have taken candy from them. They should have warned us about the nice priests, coaches, and neighbors. That's the point of the cover.

  • junkgeek Agua Dulce, TX
    July 23, 2013 1:03 p.m.

    There isn't a soul alive who will stop reading RS because of the cover. If you were offended by it, you probably weren't a subscriber or reader...

  • Brave Sir Robin San Diego, CA
    July 23, 2013 8:56 a.m.

    Rolling Stone isn't "glorifying" the bomber (as Carmen Rasmussen asserts)....they are simply trying to create controversy. This magazine survives on being controversial. The more you press you give them, the more it feeds the beast. Stop talking about this and it will go away.

    Don't feed the trolls, Deseret News!

  • raybies Layton, UT
    July 23, 2013 8:43 a.m.

    This isn;t new to rolling stone magazine. They put Manson on their cover back when he was making the news...

  • The Dixie Kid Saint George, UT
    July 23, 2013 6:22 a.m.

    Stories like this crack me up. They complain about the cover and content of the issue, but then they go on and show the cover photo and discuss everything about the article. Fox News complains about it all day too, and yet they plaster the photo on TV it seems like every hour. I probably would never have seen the magazine if were not for articles like these.

  • Iron Rod Salt Lake City, UT
    July 23, 2013 3:29 a.m.

    I feel it is important to have a dialogue on what ideas or pressure would cause a person to strike out against the country that offered them sanctuary.

    I think the article is simply trying to explore what caused him to change.

    Is it not important to address these issues?

  • Midwest Mom Soldiers Grove, WI
    July 23, 2013 12:37 a.m.

    The real tragedy is to miss the point of the story. I read it. It's worth reading. "Monstrous" people don't start out that way. To believe that is to profile those who are different from us. To believe that there are people who are less than, because they are more "monster"-like than we is to miss the plain fact that there are potential monsters in all of us. He was a lovely child. He is an attractive young man. He did start out life as an innocent baby. What happened to bring him to this tragic point in his life is pretty important stuff, because his tragedy became tragic for even more innocents. What makes a man a monster? What could become monstrous in us? What is monstrous about our culture, country or policies that might make monsters of others? These are questions we must ask ourselves if we are serious about finding solutions to terrorism. For when we dehumanize our enemies and call them "monsters," it enables us to hate. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and his brother made that mistake. We would do well to learn from their error.

  • Another Perspective Bountiful, UT
    July 22, 2013 11:35 p.m.

    The decision to put him on the cover illustrates to all of us that we can't always judge a book by its cover.

  • Steve C. Warren WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    July 22, 2013 9:09 p.m.

    What's this? A cover story about a bad person who wasn't born bad? Scandalous.

    In the old days, this would never have been allowed . . . except for the stories about Bonnie and Clyde, Ted Bundy, O.J., Hitler, Jim Jones, Osama bin Laden, Saddam, Jeffrey Dahmer, Rasputin, Gaddafi, Attila the Hun, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Ayatollah Khomeini, the Boston Strangler, well, I don't have time for this.

  • Vladhagen Salt Lake City, UT
    July 22, 2013 8:10 p.m.

    I think that Carmen is justified in at least expressing an opinion on this. The guy already has received huge press, so Carmen's writing about him in this negative light is not going to bring more exposure to him. It is the positive press from RS that is problematic.

  • the zamboni Salt Lake City, UT
    July 22, 2013 7:49 p.m.

    This article is worth even less thought than the subject it attempting to address. Congratulations on drawing even more attention to the magazine you're accusing of glorifying a terrorist. If they're guilty, then you're guilty by association for piling on.