The story, a two-month investigative report by Janet Reitman, tracks Tsarnaev’s tragic, dangerous path from a well-liked student to a monster, focusing on the increasing influence of radical Islam. "As a company with deep roots in New England and a strong presence in Boston, we believe this is the right decision out of respect for the victims of the attack and their loved ones," the company said on its Facebook page. But Rolling Stone has published several other terrific works of journalism, and its editors have stood by their cover. Time magazine profiled the Columbine shooters through a similar lens, calling them “the monsters next door” on their cover and asking, “What made them do it?” 
 
 Few people complained, however, when the Columbine shooters graced the cover of Time, perhaps in part because that magazine is devoted primarily to news, whereas Rolling Stone devotes more space to music and culture. What we get instead, however, is the most alarming sight of all: a boy who looks like someone we might know.
– Chances are you've heard about the decision by Rolling Stone to put Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on the cover. Critics have been in a rage all day, and stores including CVS say they won't even stock it. It's offensive, exploitative, and glorifies violence are the more common refrains. At Slate, Mark Joseph Stern has a different word: Brilliant. "By depicting a terrorist as sweet and handsome rather than ugly and terrifying, Rolling Stone has subverted our expectations and hinted at a larger truth," he writes. Instead of seeing a monster, we see "a boy who looks like someone we might know." This is great journalism, writes Stern, and he argues that Rolling Stone is getting unfairly slammed by critics. Where was the outrage when the New York Times ran the same photo on its front page? Or when Time put the Columbine shooters on its cover? Rolling Stone isn't glorifying Tsarnaev, it's exploring the contradictions about him. "We may want the media to reconfirm for us that psychopaths are crazed, nutty, creepy recluses whom we can easily identify and thus avoid. But, as this cover reminds us, that simply isn’t the case." Click for the full post. (Meanwhile, USA Today notes that Rolling Stone put none other than Charles Manson on its cover 40 years ago—and won a National Magazine award for the interview.)