Abstract
Rolling Stone ignited a debate in July 2013 when it published a cover featuring alleged Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. The online version of the cover story drew comments expressing criticism and support of the cover. A qualitative analysis of comments posted within the first week of the cover story shed light on the image’s institutional meaning for Rolling Stone and cultural meaning for readers. Assessing this cover as a critical incident, this study shows how readers, through their comments, participated in the ongoing boundary work in the journalistic field, joining journalism’s interpretive community in defining professional roles, norms, and routines.
In July 2013, Rolling Stone magazine ignited a firestorm. A few months after brothers Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev set off homemade bombs at the 15 April Boston Marathon, killing 3 people and injuring 200 (Goldman and Horwitz, 2014), Dzhokhar appeared on the cover of the magazine. The image, showing the 19-year-old with curly, tousled hair and wearing a T-shirt, elicited comparisons to an earlier Rolling Stone cover featuring Jim Morrison of The Doors, with some noting that Tsarnaev looked ‘more like a rock star than an alleged terrorist’ (Alexander, 2013).
The response, particularly on social media, was swift and fierce. One online commenter condemned Rolling Stone for ‘glamorizing terrorism’ (Cannold et al., 2013). Boston city Mayor Thomas Menino called the cover ‘a total disgrace’ for ‘glorifying’ Tsarnaev rather than first responders or bombing survivors (Malone, 2013). But a Boston Globe editorial writer (Rolling Stone controversy: Not every image is a celebration, 2013) defended the decision, urging readers to focus on the cover article, ‘a major commitment of time and energy’ deserving of ‘prominent play in the magazine and of broader public attention’.In response to the backlash, Rolling Stone released an editor’s note emphasizing its ‘traditions of journalism’ and ‘long-standing commitment to serious and thoughtful coverage of the most important political and cultural issues of our day’ (Reitman, 2013).
Why was an image, which had already appeared in multiple other media outlets (Cannold et al., 2013), so polarizing as published on the cover of Rolling Stone? Founded in 1967 as a voice for the growing American counterculture (Frontani, 2002), Rolling Stone initially focused on music and music culture but expanded its coverage to politics, film, TV, and current events (Hatton and Trautner, 2011). Its covers have featured musicians as well as comedians, actors, models, politicians, record producers, military analysts, civil rights activists, journalists, film directors, and athletes (Hatton and Trautner, 2011). The magazine has achieved a ‘mythical power’ in American popular culture, thanks not only to its in-depth and investigative journalistic work but also to its ‘star-making abilities’ for performers and others still seeking fame (Lambiase, 2005: 4). As such, it engenders a certain set of expectations from its followers.
Through a qualitative analysis of online comments about the Tsarnaev cover appearing on Rolling Stone’s website, this study evaluated how the widely seen image of Tsarnaev, which could be characterized as a critical incident (Zelizer, 1993, 2010) in journalism, spurred symbolic contests over journalistic roles, norms, and routines as perceived by readers. The study also assessed how readers took part in journalism’s ongoing boundary work (Carlson, 2015) by invoking and debating journalistic standards in their comments. Finally, the study considered how online commenters became part of journalism’s interpretive community, contributing to the construction of meaning about the value and function of journalism in the context of Rolling Stone’s polarizing decision.
Literature review
The magazine cover is important for numerous reasons. First, because magazines usually represent an impulse buy, ‘a magazine’s cover has to work fast to capture the attention and dollars of any potential reader’ (Sumner and Rhoades, 2006: 46). Therefore, magazine publishers invest substantial time, resources, and research into planning and executing ideas for their covers. Second, covers are considered the ‘face of a publication’ (p. 34), and covers are important to magazines’ image-building (Losowsky, 2007). Publishers aim for consistency – churning out good covers one after the other, usually along the same themes and styles – to maintain a particular image. Finally, this consistency contributes to magazine covers functioning as cultural symbols (Cerulo, 1984; Losowsky, 2007; Pompper et al., 2009). Magazine covers are frequently discussed, reprinted, exhibited, and immortalized in displays, books, and other magazines: Sometimes, a cover image will be so iconic that it becomes separated from its context to become part of our culture’s visual memory, as with John and Yoko’s Rolling Stone cover from January 1981 and Demi Moore’s pregnant portrait from August 1991’s Vanity Fair. (Losowsky, 2007: 42)
Magazine covers serve as repositories of cultural symbols; they have become spaces imbued with institutional meaning. For example, appearing on the cover of People magazine confers a celebrity some sort of legitimacy. The word magazine is traced back to the Arabic word makhazin, which means ‘warehouse or storehouse’ (Johnson and Prijatel, 2007: 4). Indeed, magazines ‘house ideas, opinions, and information’ (Johnson and Prijatel, 2007: 4), and their covers have become storehouses of cultural meanings. Taylor (2006: 9) suggests that magazine covers should be considered significant media in their own right.
The impact of magazine covers reflects the sociocultural influence of magazines as a mass medium. Although magazines are business enterprises and shift according to industry trends, they are also ‘cultural markers’ reflecting the social and cultural reality in which they are produced (Abrahamson et al., 2003). Magazines may also play an even broader role, ‘shaping the very social reality of their sociocultural moment’ (Abrahamson, 2007: 668) by influencing trends and tastes. Magazines achieve this influence through building communities among readers with similar interests and speaking to them about topics important to them (Abrahamson, 2009). Magazines also serve as sites of knowledge-production, although this knowledge tends to emphasize ‘commonsensical, already-shared knowledge, often mediated by citing other media, cultural brokers, and celebrity figures’ (Narunsky-Laden, 2013: 76). Even so, readers rely on the familiar social worlds created within magazines and appreciate the recognizable messages they disseminate, as well as the opportunities they provide for social organizing within those environments (Narunsky-Laden, 2013).
Cultural influence of Rolling Stone
Few magazines in America carry as much cultural meaning as Rolling Stone. Founded in 1967 by Jann Wenner, the magazine initially aimed to reflect the aspirations of the growing counterculture (Frontani, 2002). The magazine also emerged as a mainstream voice on Western pop culture (Frontani, 2002), establishing itself as ‘the most authoritative rock & roll magazine in the land’ (Draper, 1990: 6). The strategy was ultimately successful, as Rolling Stone became the most widely distributed counterculture publication and continued to use rock stars, often via cover photographs, to represent its stances on social and political issues (Frontani, 2002).
Rolling Stone has changed significantly over the decades, from eschewing ‘the Establishment dollar’ (p. 143) to regularly featuring fashion and automobile advertising, as well as professional design and a consistent editorial voice (Draper, 1990). The magazine’s readership has grown to encompass multiple generations, including 27 percent ages 18–24 years, 23 percent ages 25–34 years, 20 percent ages 35–44 years, 17 percent ages 45–54 years, and 13 percent ages 55 years and up (Media Kit, 2015). Currently, Rolling Stone’s total circulation is 1.47 million copies, including 95 percent subscription and 4.89 percent newsstand sales (Media Kit, 2015).
The cover of Rolling Stone can indicate the sociocultural environment in which it was created. For example, scholars have assessed Rolling Stone covers in terms of depictions of gender, ethnicity, and sexualization (e.g. Hatton and Trautner, 2011; Pompper et al., 2009). The public response to Rolling Stone has also drawn attention. In particular, the influence of a former FHM editor, who was named Rolling Stone’s editor in 2002, and a former Playboy vice president, who took the reins in 2005, resulted in an increased emphasis on sexualized images on magazine covers (Lambiase, 2005). To gauge public response to this shift, Lambiase (2005) analyzed 51 letters to the editor regarding Rolling Stone covers to understand how they constructed the magazine’s audience. The analysis found that 23 letters praised the covers, 27 were critical, and 1 was neutral, providing evidence for a magazine at a crossroads in its history as a result of changing leadership and other challenges. This mix of public perceptions of Rolling Stone and its journalistic mission was also evident in the mixed responses to the Tsarnaev cover.
Symbolic contests
The field of journalism has been conceptualized as an interpretive community (Zelizer, 1993, 2010). Such a conceptualization recognizes that journalists form a community that is ‘united through its shared discourse and collective interpretations of key public events’ (Zelizer, 1993: 223) and addresses the limitations of understanding journalism as a profession (Ugland and Henderson, 2007; Zelizer, 2010). As members of an interpretive community, journalists engage in interpretive work highlighted during discussions of critical incidents (Zelizer, 2010). Critical incidents ‘refer to those moments by which people air, challenge, and negotiate their own boundaries of practice’ (Zelizer, 1992: 67). In journalism, these key public events illuminate ‘different rules and conventions about journalistic practice and authority’ (Zelizer, 1992: 67).
Conceptualizing journalism as an interpretive community sheds light on professional boundary work, especially in a period when the meanings of core concepts in journalism are being challenged. The struggles that journalists face extend beyond the financial future of their profession to technological and social shocks to how they do and define their work. ‘Struggles over journalism are often struggles over boundaries’ (Carlson, 2015: 2). These struggles could be examined through journalists’ interpretive work, highlighted during critical incidents. Indeed, ‘Contests over journalism’s boundaries are symbolic contests in which different actors vie for definitional control to apply or remove the label of journalism’ (Carlson, 2015: 2). An important participant in this journalistic struggle is the audience, traditionally conceived of as existing outside journalism’s interpretive community. However, new technologies allow audiences to participate in symbolic contests associated with critical incidents. They can upload information and share interpretations on social media (Hermida, 2011). They can also post comments on news websites (Robinson, 2015).
An interpretive community can be considered ‘a cultural site where meanings are constructed, shared, and reconstructed by members of social groups in the course of everyday life’ (Berkowitz and TerKeurst, 1999: 125). Interpretive groups are ‘composed of people engaged in common activities and common purposes who employ a common frame of reference for interpreting their social settings’ (Berkowitz and TerKeurst, 1999: 127). Following these definitions, the interpretive community known as journalism appears to be expanding. Bloggers and online citizens are doing acts of journalism and have ‘become part of the news production community’ (Robinson and DeShano, 2011: 980). Bloggers who criticize traditional media employ traditional journalistic standards and common frames of normative references in their discourse (Vos et al., 2011). So do readers who comment on news websites (Craft et al., 2016). The audience has clearly formed its own channel for news construction (Singer and Ashman, 2009), meriting a reconsideration of the audience’s role in journalism’s interpretive community.
In this study, we considered Rolling Stone’s cover featuring Dzhokhar Tsarnaev as a critical incident that illuminated roles, routines, norms, and contradictions that mark journalism’s ongoing boundary work. We examined readers’ comments about the cover, with the assumption that readers have entered journalism’s interpretive community through their participation in defining and symbolically contesting journalism’s boundaries. Through their comments, readers communicated their expectations of Rolling Stone’s symbolic and professional roles and their understandings of its larger cultural and institutional position. Previous work similarly considered readers’ comments as boundary objects (e.g. Robinson, 2015). ‘Where perhaps an individual commenter cannot move a border, comments symbolize a foreign presence with a developing set of norms and etiquette that directly challenge those established by journalists’ (Robinson, 2015: 163). Although reader comments tend to challenge traditional journalists, they do so by employing traditional journalistic lexicon and standards (Craft et al., 2016; Robinson, 2015). In doing so, and as this study demonstrated, the audience takes part in the ongoing symbolic contest that marks journalism’s boundary work.
Theoretical synthesis
The magazine cover ranges from serving as a window into a media organization’s image and a springboard for sales to a repository of cultural meanings. This is particularly true for Rolling Stone, which has earned its place not only in pop culture but also in media consciousness. Thus, when the magazine decided to feature a suspected terrorist on its cover, it triggered a critical incident in journalism that illuminated tensions over norms and roles that mark journalism’s ongoing boundary work. The online comments about the Tsarnaev cover provided a space for readers to participate in this boundary work and in the larger interpretive community engaged in an ongoing symbolic contest defining journalism. Rolling Stone’s history and influence established certain expectations among the community of readers in terms of its location with respect to journalism’s boundaries. Grounded in this framework, this study addressed these research questions:
Research question 1 (RQ1). What themes were involved in online commenters’ symbolic contest regarding Rolling Stone’s cover featuring a photograph of suspected Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev?
Research question 2 (RQ2): What did these themes suggest about online audiences’ participation in journalistic boundary work in response to a critical incident in journalism?
Research question 3 (RQ3). How did these responses contribute to commenters becoming part of journalism’s interpretive community?
Method
Information technologies have allowed new ways through which audiences interact with media messages (Hermida, 2011; Napoli, 2011). For many online news sites, audience feedback comes in the form of comments that appear after each online story (Braun and Gillespie, 2011). Thus, the audience is now part of the news construction process (Singer and Ashman, 2009). Comments also influence online experiences (Houston et al., 2011). Online commenting comes from a self-selected segment of online users and is, therefore, not representative of general public sentiment. Still, readers’ comments offer a peek into the ideas and opinions of individuals who feel strongly about an issue. They provide clues into how the audience engages in meaning-making with media messages. This study used qualitative textual analysis to analyze online comments to understand how Rolling Stone readers used the magazine’s website to make meaning of the magazine’s decision to feature Tsarnaev on its August 2013 cover.
Sampling
The researchers collected readers’ comments posted on the Rolling Stone website in response to the cover story on Tsarnaev, titled ‘Jahar’s World’. The comments considered for analysis were those posted within the first week after the cover story was published online (from 17 to 24 July 2013). This sampling frame yielded 7871 comments, including replies, which were also included in the sample. The authors analyzed only comments referencing the cover, the cover story, and Rolling Stone as an institution.
Analysis
Two researchers coded the texts independently for primary-cycle coding. They discussed the codes they found after the initial process and then engaged in secondary-cycle coding. This study used a constant comparative approach to data analysis, a common analytical strategy in grounded theory (e.g. Corbin and Strauss, 1990; Glaser, 1965).
Primary-cycle coding
Tracy (2013) recommended the process of fracturing, or breaking down data into smaller pieces, during the primary-cycle coding stage, or the first stage of coding, also called open coding (Glaser and Strauss, 1967; Saldaña, 2009). Guided by the research questions, the researchers independently coded the comments line by line.
Secondary-cycle coding
Secondary-cycle coding is marked by ‘classifying, prioritizing, integrating, synthesizing, abstracting, conceptualizing, and theory-building’ (Saldaña, 2009: 45). In this stage, the researchers compared and discussed the codes they independently found and began to make sense of patterns that emerged from the data (Tracy, 2013). The series of discussions centered on locating the codes that emerged in the primary stage in conceptual bins that addressed each part of the research questions. The researchers then constructed a narrative around each conceptual cluster.
Results
Audiences in a symbolic contest
The first research question focused on determining the themes involved in online commenters’ symbolic contest over the controversial Rolling Stone cover. The analysis of comments found four themes: invoking media routines, referring to journalistic roles, referring to Rolling Stone’s history, and attributing cultural meanings to the cover.
Media routines
Many online commenters focused on media routines involved in Rolling Stone’s editorial decision to use the cover photograph. Media routines refer to ‘patterned, repeated practices and forms media workers use to do their jobs’ (Shoemaker and Reese, 1996: 105). Some argued that the cover photograph was a necessary consequence of traditional journalistic decision-making processes and was, therefore, part of an acceptable journalistic practice, while others blamed media routines for what the commenters considered an offensive cover photograph. Several commenters from both sides addressed media routines and used them to support their own stance.
Some commenters defended the cover, saying it was integral to the story. ‘This was an article about the accused. The photo had to be of him’, one commenter said. ‘I think they put his photo on the front because it was the lead story and that’s what magazines do,’ another commenter said. Because the story was about an otherwise normal kid now suspected to be behind a gruesome attack, another commenter said that the photograph ‘matched the theme of the story’. In a clear reference to media routines – how media work goes – one commenter said that those describing the cover selection as done in ‘poor taste’ either did not read the article or ‘don’t understand how magazines operate. The most important story gets played up on the front page with a lead photo’.
Those who criticized Rolling Stone, however, used the same argument. Some displayed familiarity with media routines – that the cover story represents the most important story in the issue – but they used this familiarity to question Rolling Stone’s decision to put Tsarnaev’s story on the cover. They asked why the magazine considered the profile of the suspected bomber as more important than the perspectives of the victims. Some commenters also referred to the routines of cover selection to speculate that the selection of the photograph was motivated by gaining attention and earning money. One commenter said, ‘RS decided to commission this story bc they knew Johar [sic] had sex appeal and putting him on the cover would cause a lot of controversy’.
But for those in favor of the cover, the goal of attracting attention did not detract from good journalism; instead, for this group of commenters, the attention the controversial photograph generated helped focus people’s attention on the point of the story – that terrorists can be anyone. One commenter said, ‘Why condemn Rolling Stone? The cover photo aptly illustrates that the face of terror isn’t always frightening. It can just as easily look like the boy next door or an attractive young man. Isn’t that the point?’
One commenter speculated that choosing a photograph in which Tsarnaev resembled rock legend Jim Morrison was ‘intentional’ and motivated by the goal to sensationalize the story and attract more attention. Some commenters criticized Rolling Stone for choosing a photograph in which Tsarnaev looked attractive, also speculating about the financial considerations behind the editorial decision. Some commenters, however, referenced the same aspect of the editorial decision-making process to challenge those opposing the cover because Tsarnaev looked good. For example, one commenter said, Is it the job of RS to look around for a ‘bad’ picture? Is it the job of RS to edit the photo to make him look ‘bad’? Should they have photoshopped it to show him foaming at the mouth, darkened his skin, given him a sinister looking scar, or stamped the word ‘evil’ across his forehead? If they had done any of those things, that would be a serious violation of journalistic standards.
Journalistic roles
The commenters’ discourse on journalistic roles operated at a more abstract level than familiarization with specific media routines. These references fell under three main categories.
First, some commenters focused on the role they attached to Rolling Stone. Some identified Rolling Stone’s journalistic role as mainly focused on providing entertainment. One commenter described the article as ‘relatively well-written’ with an ‘interesting perspective on the alleged bomber’. However, ‘The problem with putting him on the cover of a magazine such as this is that this magazine is PRIMARILY an entertainment magazine [emphasis in the original]’. Others echoed this, arguing that no matter how Rolling Stone perceived itself, it was still ‘an entertainment magazine which promotes pop culture icons’. This was a common theme across numerous comments, with a few bordering on defining what journalism is and whether Rolling Stone practices journalism. Some commenters’ perception of Rolling Stone as providing entertainment led them to evaluate the decision to do a profile on Tsarnaev as well as display his photograph on the cover as falling outside the magazine’s social functions. But other commenters had a different role for the magazine in mind: ‘Rolling Stone does some of the most in-depth long-form investigative reporting around. People who read the magazine know that, and know it’s no Teen Beat’. The commenter defended Rolling Stone for publishing an investigative piece of journalism, which the commenter suggested fits the publication’s journalistic mission while also differentiating it from magazines catering to young readers. Others also argued that Rolling Stone is not merely an entertainment magazine but has consistently published ‘high-end political, legal, ethical and tragic pieces’.
Second, some commenters highlighted boundaries between the roles of the magazine and those of other news organizations. Some commenters said that Rolling Stone was the wrong outlet for the cover. One said, ‘Had it been Time Magazine, no one would have blinked an eye, because it’s expected from a news magazine’. This group of commenters appeared to set boundaries between the roles of different media players, with Time magazine, for example, playing a different role from Rolling Stone. But others used the same strategy – of comparing Rolling Stone with other media organizations – to express support of the cover. They argued that the photograph used on the cover had been published by other media organizations, such as The New York Times. ‘Rolling Stone is just another media, like TV channels, newspaper or Internet’, one commenter said. Some also argued that other magazines and newspapers had also published photographs of terrorists on their front pages in the past, such as Time publishing Osama Bin Laden’s photograph on its October 2001 issue. ‘Where was the outrage there?’ one commenter said. ‘If you think the RS cover is offensive, then so is CNN and every major news network that shows Jahar’s face’. In contrast, those opposed to the Rolling Stone cover argued that Rolling Stone plays a different social function from other organizations. ‘Why are there so many clueless people who do not realize the contextual significance of a Rolling Stone cover versus any other publication such as the New York Times?’ one commenter wrote.
Finally, commenters referenced how financial considerations hinder the performance of journalistic roles. Some commenters argued that the decision to put Tsarnaev’s photograph on the cover was motivated by the goal to increase sales. One commenter described Rolling Stone as a ‘shitty rag’, that is ‘so desperate for revenue in the face of declining sales and relevance that they have taken the low, LOW, road and have attempted to elevate a sick murderer to celebrity status [emphasis in the original]’. Some commenters argued that the deviation from Rolling Stone’s traditional role of providing entertainment was meant to attract attention and increase sales – arguments that also interestingly depart from traditional criticisms of how news organizations produce more fluff than substance by providing more entertainment than public affairs pieces because of profit considerations. A few commenters even took the chance to generalize to the larger field of media production: ‘I shouldn’t be surprised … you’re the media after all, and we all know the media is a relentless, heartless animal that feeds off of controversy and money’.
This discourse on the influence of profit motivations touched the core of journalistic autonomy, another argument those defending Rolling Stone invoked. Some argued that the magazine had the autonomy to choose what it would publish. This was in response to arguments that Rolling Stone had to maintain its entertainment function, that its pages were reserved for artists, and that the magazine should have considered the victims of the bombing. ‘Support the right to free speech in America, and stop demonizing journalists you spoiled, fascist pigs! Rolling Stone may publish what they want, whenever they want’, one commenter said. A few brought up the issue of censorship, arguing that limiting what Rolling Stone can publish challenges the First Amendment. For example, Who says that the cover of RS is reserved for anyone in particular? Who gets to decide that? You? Me? No. The reading public doesn’t get to make that determination, because we have independent journalism in our society. Rolling Stone is a news source that writes articles and makes decisions as to which photos go best with their articles. For you or any member of the reading public to tell Rolling Stone what should or should not go on their cover comes alarmingly close to censorship.
Rolling Stone’s history
The commenters’ conceptions of the role of Rolling Stone partially stemmed from its history – either perceived or actual. The discussion of Rolling Stone’s history, however, did not represent a unified understanding. Rather, commenters fell into two camps: those who read the magazine from its early years and were familiar with other issues that took a similar approach, and younger readers who associated the magazine with entertainment. A clear distinction arose between those commenters who saw themselves as ‘real readers’ of the magazine and those they characterized as casual readers. These commenters criticized those who suggested that the magazine was focused exclusively on entertainment, citing various examples from the magazine’s history to support their claims.
For example, these commenters drew from their knowledge of Rolling Stone’s history to describe examples of political coverage that appeared in the magazine, as well as notable writers, such as gonzo journalist Hunter S. Thompson or satirist P.J. O’Rourke. One commenter said, Rolling Stone has a long history of hard investigative journalism on social and political issues (my favorite was Matt Taibbi’s 2009 article on the financial collapse). You would know this if you read RS on any kind of regular basis.
This commenter clearly established herself as a Rolling Stone insider who recognized the magazine’s political focus. Other readers also seemed to view Rolling Stone as consistently provocative and countercultural, so the Tsarnaev cover merely fit within the publication’s institutional mission and should not have surprised anyone truly familiar with the magazine.
Other comments compared the Tsarnaev cover with the 1970 Rolling Stone cover depicting mass murderer Charles Manson. Most often, this comparison was cited to defend the Tsarnaev cover because Rolling Stone had previously used a provocative cover to shed light on a controversial issue. A commenter wrote, As for the notorious Bomber image on the front, wasn’t Manson once on the cover of the Rolling Stone? The only thing wrong about Janet Reitman’s piece of chillingly excellent journalism is that it seems people are too busy freaking out to read it.
But the others who used the magazine’s history to criticize its cover choice associated Rolling Stone with previous iconic covers depicting specific artists – a clear reference to an expectation of consistency. In particular, commenters cited the 1971 cover featuring The Doors’ Jim Morrison. In this case, Morrison was seen as ‘earning’ his right to appear on the cover and is now regarded as a legend. Thus, Tsarnaev did not rise to the level of the notable cover subjects who came before him and does not reflect the history of the magazine and its covers. Another commenter, although suggesting that Rolling Stone typically provides ‘quality long form journalism’, said that the magazine made a mistake in featuring Tsarnaev because of the institutional cache associated with Rolling Stone. Although publishing the article on Tsarnaev falls within Rolling Stone’s mission, the cover of the magazine retains a different, higher cultural role, a commenter argued, clearly referencing Rolling Stone’s history: I don’t mind at all. The thing is, over the years, I’ve loved Rolling Stone for its coverage of emerging artists, and its ability to represent the voice and style of the ever-evolving American culture. As a guy who loves the way that America values raw creativity and meritocracy, I’m appauled [sic], and, frankly, disgusted with Rolling Stone’s vapid choice to make this pitiful and contemptible kid a cover boy [emphasis ours].
Cultural meaning of the cover
Some commenters went beyond Rolling Stone’s history to focus specifically on the cover and its cultural significance, a space laden not only with history but also with institutional meaning. A few argued that the cover of any publication is an important space. For example, a commenter said, ‘In the journalistic world, a cover is a big deal, no matter what publication’. But many others specifically focused on Rolling Stone’s cover and its cultural and institutional meanings. Commenters frequently addressed the value associated with appearing on the magazine’s cover, using words such as ‘honor’, ‘achievement’, ‘famous’, ‘big deal’, ‘commodity’, ‘pedestal’, and other superlatives to highlight the significance of what they saw as an important cultural achievement. They also suggested that cover subjects had earned their right to appear there by ‘making it big’ or ‘making a contribution’. One commenter described the cover as a ‘powerful platform’, suggesting that appearing on Rolling Stone imbues a subject with a responsibility to live up to the honor bestowed upon him or her. Another commenter also referred to ‘the cover of a magazine that depicts our demi-gods’. Although the commenters consistently elevated Rolling Stone’s cover to pinnacle status, they disagreed whether using that platform to portray Tsarnaev was powerful or problematic.
In addressing the problems with depicting Tsarnaev on the cover, commenters suggested that he had not earned his place there. For example, ‘Placing anyone’s picture on the cover of Rolling Stone, is a glory position. It is poor judgement [sic] to glorify a misguided kid, who set out to slaughter random people’. Some commenters said that the magazine’s cover conferred honor to whoever graces it by association with previous personalities who were deemed worthy. A commenter said, ‘The cover puts this kid in the same playing field as every other cover picture of this magazine. It compares him to Miley Cyrus, Justin Bieber, Johnny Depp. It associates their fame and influence with Jahar’s’. Others also argued that the cover portrayed Tsarnaev as heroic. One commenter said, ‘Okay, the story doesn’t necessarily hail this animal as a hero, but the cover does’. Here, the commenter negotiated between the message of the cover and the message of the article. The article adequately described the evil of Tsarnaev’s actions, but that was negated through the cover, which carried a different meaning, something that, at least to this commenter, was more powerful. The cover of a magazine serves a cultural function extending beyond the specific publication on which the cover appears. Commenters recognized this influence and attempted to interpret the meaning of a cover, namely, its ability to provide a platform for chosen subjects and its function as a source of pride for those ‘chosen’ to appear there.
Audiences in journalism’s boundary work
The second research question problematized how the themes invoked by online commenters in their responses to the controversial cover illuminated their place in journalistic boundary work. Online commenters who participated in the symbolic contest around Rolling Stone’s controversial cover – a critical incident in journalism – displayed familiarization with media routines; elaborated on the roles they ascribed to and expected from the media; showed how these expectations are rooted in their constructed history of, in this case, Rolling Stone; and attached cultural meanings to spaces in journalism, in this case, the magazine cover. These themes clearly refer to elements of boundary work.
On one hand, many commenters invoked traditional journalistic norms and routines in their critiques. These represent traditional markers of journalism’s boundary. Both the defense of Rolling Stone’s editorial autonomy and the perceived transgression of objectivity, while invoked by the opposing sides of the symbolic contest, are consistent with traditional journalistic standards, as both sides of the debate appeared to preserve current boundaries of journalism. But many commenters also debated a core question in journalistic boundary work: Who is a journalist? The commenters’ discourse largely spoke to the fluid understandings of Rolling Stone’s role as a purveyor of journalism.
Some readers suggested that because the magazine had often focused on entertainment, its editorial mission did not include investigative work, and therefore, the piece on Tsarnaev fell outside of its social role and might have served only as a financial incentive. For example, a commenter offered a typology of media organizations based on the perceived roles they play: ‘Actually CNN and TIME magazine are political and news media while RS is entertainment and rockstars’. This comment sought to mark the boundaries of journalism based on the nature of content commonly associated with journalistic sources. Other commenters pointed to Rolling Stone’s history, which includes instances when it published pieces dealing with public affairs. For these readers, Rolling Stone had done acts of journalism, making it a journalistic institution. For example, some commenters addressed how other traditional news organizations used images of Tsarnaev without generating any controversy, in essence equating Rolling Stone with these legacy media and confirming it as a journalistic outlet.
These contradictions demonstrate that debates and negotiations over journalism’s boundary, in this case even its identity, are not confined to journalists themselves but extend to discourses emanating from audiences. Technological innovation, specifically the Internet’s affordance for online commentary, provides an accessible public space for symbolic contests that have also become platforms for audiences to take part in journalism’s boundary work. By problematizing journalism’s boundaries, audiences also negotiate entry into those boundaries as they increase their influence on, and take part in, journalism’s interpretive community.
Audiences in journalism’s interpretive community
The third research question considered the online commenters’ place within journalism’s interpretive community. In commenting whether Rolling Stone’s controversial cover was acceptable, the commenters also negotiated the reach of the interpretive community where Rolling Stone operates.
First, many commenters expressed concern that featuring Tsarnaev on the cover would encourage other would-be terrorists to try to earn their place in the spotlight: ‘Currently, by RS, this kid is made to be a Rock Star. For other young, impressionable minds to admire. If you put a bomb in a public place, you’ll be on the cover of a magazine …’. This view suggests that Rolling Stone has a significant influence on young people, particularly through its use of images. Through these arguments, some commenters referred to members of an interpretive community beyond the immediate audience of the magazine, stressing that the magazine’s responsibility goes beyond its target market. A few others, however, rejected these fears, saying the media are not powerful enough to influence copycats: ‘I think you need to stop worrying about people somehow falling under the spell of a magazine cover and being too stupid to think about what it or the story is trying to show’.
Second, many commenters referred to the victims of the attack and their families as important members of the community that the magazine should have considered as well. Some suggested that the cover would serve as a traumatic reminder for victims of the Boston Marathon bombings. Because magazines have a longer shelf life than newspapers, portraying the bomber on the cover could have a lingering influence. ‘The first sight of your cover was horrifying’, a commenter said. ‘I gasped, then shuttered thinking of the impact that photo would have on countless others, who were exposed to the tragic nightmare he caused directly and indirectly’. A few others considered the cover an ‘insult’ to the victims, saying those who perished in the attack ‘should be respected’.
But those who supported Tsarnaev’s appearance on the cover discussed the benefit of showing a terrorist who does not fit the typical image that many Americans might have of terrorism. They argued that publishing a photograph of an attractive young man – one who resembles a rock star – might help readers recognize that deadly inclinations can emanate from their own back yards. This is part of keeping the community safe and of serving a common good. Many commenters used the magazine’s own tagline – ‘The Bomber: How a popular, promising student was failed by his family, fell into radical Islam and became a monster’ – to support their suggestions, noting that monsters do not always look like monsters. One commenter said, ‘To know your monsters is one step towards getting rid of them, right?’ This commenter supported the magazine’s decision to educate members of the community about the issue of terrorism, a form of helping the bombing victims because of Rolling Stone’s influence as a media platform in general, and the cultural power of its cover in particular.
Through their discussions of the cover and their immediate reactions to it, online commenters on the Rolling Stone website participated in a community meaning-making process. They not only addressed their opinions of the cover but also the events of the Boston Marathon bombing and their societal implications. In pages after pages of comments, days and months after the cover was published, the contestation of meanings continued. A commenter responded to someone who assessed the magazine’s treatment of Tsarnaev as a rock star worthy of the cover page by saying, A photo of a terrorist is on the cover of Rolling Stone and you think he is a Rock Star? You can’t distinguish between a terrorist and a Rock Star? That is a bit discomforting, but I am certain the majority of people can understand and see the difference.
These comments suggested that the commenters not only became part of an interpretive community focused on journalism, problematizing its norms and values during a critical incident that merits a reexamination, but they also participated, and represented, a broader interpretive Community that considers how journalism’s rules and the ways they are practiced affect society. On one hand, the commenters took part in journalism’s interpretive community by reflecting on its internal norms and negotiating its boundaries. On the other hand, the commenters also set foot outside those journalistic boundaries to comment on how Rolling Stone’s decision to put Tsarnaev on the cover had tangible implications, both positive and negative. These implications could reverberate for years to come, well beyond the shelf life of that particular issue, and well beyond journalism’s own community.
Conclusion
The controversy that Rolling Stone’s cover featuring convicted Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev sparked represented a critical incident in journalism that illuminated deep tensions in the discourse about what constitutes the boundaries of journalistic practice (Zelizer, 1992). As readers problematized whether Rolling Stone was justified in its decision to publish the polarizing cover, they also touched on themes of journalistic routines, roles, and ethics, displaying concern and awareness of how journalism ought to function, thereby engaging in boundary work to define journalism and its normative role. In doing so, they also took part in an interpretive community where agents consider what journalistic decisions mean for the profession (Robinson, 2015; Zelizer, 2010), while they also represented a larger interpretive Community that considered journalism’s impact on interpretive communities beyond its own.
The online commenters attributed particular meanings to the cover while also engaging in a discussion of media’s social role, suggesting their involvement in an interpretive community where they could construct, share, and reconstruct meanings (Berkowitz and TerKeurst, 1999). These themes appeared across the comments, whether or not commenters supported the magazine’s decision to publish the cover. Commenters invoked the same standards but applied them in different ways, underscoring ongoing tensions within journalism. The findings of this study support Lambiase’s (2005) suggestion that readers have placed Rolling Stone at a crossroads in its history as it negotiates dual roles of entertainment purveyor and journalistic bastion. Their impassioned responses also demonstrated the magazine’s role as a ‘cultural marker’ chronicling the social reality in which it is produced (Abrahamson et al., 2003) as well as its ability to build community among readers with similar interests and tastes (Abrahamson, 2009). The commenters contested what function Rolling Stone, a magazine traditionally equated with pop culture, might fulfill as a journalistic entity. The boundaries of journalism are shifting, and as journalists grapple with technological and social shocks to the profession, readers also consider what media platforms deserve the label of journalism (Carlson, 2015).
The diverse responses to the cover also resulted in a robust public forum where readers deliberated and debated journalism in general. They offered a particularly sophisticated discourse regarding media roles and routines. As such, the commenters did not exist outside of the interpretive community of journalism but became part of the ‘news production community’ (Robinson and DeShano, 2011: 980). They made statements employing common journalistic understandings of how magazine covers are chosen and their economic and cultural functions (Craft et al., 2016; Robinson, 2015). Through these discussions, the commenters clearly took part in the boundary work marking journalism’s interpretive community (Zelizer, 1993, 2010). The online commenters also considered the potential influence of the story on readers. They discussed larger implications of the cover, suggesting tangible ways it might influence readers and the broader public, suggesting that they had created an even larger interpretive Community that could challenge the norms established by journalists (Robinson, 2015).
Conceptualizing the Rolling Stone cover controversy as a critical incident in journalism provided an opportunity to assess readers’ responses to the cover in terms of how they see journalists and journalism and expectations of proper practice (Zelizer, 1993). This analysis demonstrated the value of such an approach, as the results displayed the ways commenters used journalism’s own lexicon in their criticism or support, demonstrating how readers have become part of journalism’s interpretive community. The readers employed ‘a common frame of reference for interpreting’ the critical incident (Berkowitz and TerKeurst, 1999: 127). The analysis also demonstrated audiences’ important role in understanding journalism’s place in a larger interpretive Community. On one hand, they are members of the community that journalism is supposed to serve. On the other hand, through feedback mechanisms such as online comment sections, audiences also gain access to journalism’s interpretive community. Examining this evolving journalistic interpretive community is essential to journalism’s ongoing boundary work (Carlson, 2015). The results of this study support this assumption: By taking part in symbolic contests around key events, such as the one investigated here, readers, through their online comments, ‘have entered the [journalistic] field with a show of force’ (Robinson, 2015: 163). They may not tear down the borders of journalism, but they are clearly expanding it, pushing the boundaries of the interpretive community beyond just journalists. In this study, such boundary work is triggered by a magazine’s controversial first page. However, it is a magazine rife with institutional history and meaning, with a media space socially constructed as a cultural symbol. In an evolving interpretive community engaged in multiple and never-ending symbolic contests, such is the power of the cover.
Footnotes
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.