Home Videos Photos

CVS Boycotting Rolling Stone Boston Bomber Cover Issue!!

| Filed under: Icky Icky PooMedia MinuteBusiness Blitz

rolling stone dzhokhar tsarnaev cvs cover ban boycott

If you didn't know, it was announced that Rolling Stone's next cover is going to feature Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who was one of two awful people who thought it was a good and okay thing to set off bombs at the finish line of the Boston Marathon. As a shocker to no one, people are PISSED about it!

Not only are people calling for a boycott of the issue (and the magazine as a whole), but we're hearing that even some businesses are refusing to carry it — INCLUDING CVS!

That's major! The company released the following statement:

"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."

While Rolling Stone has every right to release whatever cover they want, we have every right to think it's not classy at all! We understand that they have a history of doing stuff like this — like with Charles Manson — but this isn't some exclusive interview or anything!

We JUST talked about a young woman who lost her leg in the explosion and is just now getting her new leg and life back together. We bet the last thing she wants to see while strolling down the street is her attempted murderer staring at her on the cover of a magazine usually meant for people who have "made it" and consider it as an honor and accomplishment!

The story IS about how Dzhokhar "fell into radical Islam and became a monster," but at passing glance a whole lot of people are just going to see two things: ROLLING STONE, and a terrorist's face. The story might itself be worth printing, but this guy doesn't deserve any more fame — or what's usually taken as an honor — for the awful things he's done.

Like we said, though, they have every right to do it. We just think it's tacky.

[Image via Rolling Stone.]

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

2014's Highest Paid TV Actors!
Richest Kids Under 30!
Highest Paid World Cup Coaches
Celebrities You Didn't Know Were Voicing Commercials!
Top 25 Touring Bands Of The Past 25 Years!
Celebrities Accused Of Sexual Misconduct!
Email this  »

25 comments to “CVS Boycotting Rolling Stone Boston Bomber Cover Issue!!”



  1. 1

    Shame on rolling stone for doing this!! How dare they put this monster on the cover!! I have lost all respect for rolling stone. Please stay with the rock stars, dont venture out to territory you are not familiar with! This is terrorism not rock star territory!!

  2. Who fucking cares says – reply to this


    2

    Rofl only American sheep are pissed. Tigers around the world are aware and are not offended by this. There are worse things happening around the world then a "terrorist" being on the Rolling Stones magazines. Like USA attacking and robbing Iraq over these "Weapons of mass destruction."
    Wake up you overly sensitive, unaware sheeps.

  3. marythemerfairy says – reply to this


    3

    Wow! I guess someone within Rolling Stones upper eschelon wanted to bankrupt Rolling Stone Magazine. Too bad the fallout will be innocent people in the company losing their jobs.
    Rich People Suck! Instant Karma will gonna them.



  4. 4

    How horrible!!!!!!! Why would they do this???? Why are they glorifying a terrorist??? They are encouraging bad behavior. The media should be deterring terrorism, not encouraging it. Shame on Rolling Stone!!! I will never ever buy their magazine ever again for the rest of my life.
    GROSS and HORRIBLE!! Think about the families of the victim!!!!! Why would anyone EVER make it cool to be a murderer of innocent people!!!! SHAME SHAME SHAME



  5. 5

    A man who blows up a little baby boy is not a rock star. F^ck you, Rolling Stone.

  6. Lady_Says says – reply to this


    6

    They're the only ones that will suffer from this, can't see it selling well at all, seems like a very poor decision.

  7. LookatYou says – reply to this


    7

    If you had a brain this cover wouldn't be so offensive. It didn't seem to matter when the bombing happened and he and his brothers picture were plastered across hundreds newspapers, magazines and websites. What about the 1st amendment. People should read the story before forming an opinion and stop following what dumbass Pervy Perez says.

  8. Maggie says – reply to this


    8

    I cannot believe how stupid it is to put this monster on the cover of the rolling stone which is normally reserved for pop culture influencers, rock stars and actors. I know someone who lost a limb due to this terrorist and his brother, I am beyond offended. I was a RS reader and fan, never again. Part of my problem is with the photo - it makes him look like a star and is glamorized.



  9. 9

    Re: booboo1492

    Yeah, did they say he was a rock star? Did you bother to read the article? Are you a perpetual loser?



  10. 10

    This is sick..It's a bit different that having then in the news paper and the news..RS is a magazine for rock stars and celebs. Not terrorist pieces of shit. I won't be buying RS anymore…

  11. gwensgirl says – reply to this


    11

    Re: Lady_Says – Thank you

  12. POS says – reply to this


    12

    Re: Who fucking cares – FUCK u…u must be a fuckin jihad terrorist yourself….u r the fucking sheep…go preach ur hatred and loser opinon somewhere else..ur a fuckin pig and piece of shit…I hope ur fuckin country gets blown up, or members of ur family suffer horrible tragedy and u will see what it's like….piece of shit loser pig…go fuckin die

  13. KimBo77 says – reply to this


    13

    While I do think that what happened to the people of Boston, I don't see how this is any different than all of the magazine covers with Osama Bin Laden on them. I think if they are featuring a story as big as this then the cover should show what the story is about. This is how magazines are sold isn't it?



  14. 14

    Re: Dubguy – I'm upset with the cover photo, not the content. You seem like such a genuinely unhappy person to try to belittle someone you've never met for disapproving of the glorification of a terrorist… such strange behavior…
    I'm also not the only one who has actually read the magazine before and knows that covers are for reserved for rock stars. They should have put Willie Nelson on the cover. We don't need copycat terrorists.



  15. 15

    While I think that what happened in Boston was terrible, I don't see how this is any different to all of the magazine covers that had Osama Bin Laden on them. He is responsible for killing way more people and has been on hundreds of covers. I think that if a magazine is featuring a story then the cover should represent that story. After all thatis how magazines are sold, right?

  16. Mdshri2 says – reply to this


    16

    Re: LookatYou – well said!!!



  17. 17

    Rolling Stone has reached desperation.



  18. 18

    I think the problem most people have with the cover, myself included, is that the photo sexualizes Dzhokar in a way that these photos of Manson, Bin Laden, etc do not. It only serves to add fuel to the ignorant "free Dzhokar" movement started by teenage girls who don't want him in jail because he is "cute".

  19. teeter totter says – reply to this


    19

    Re: LookatYou – First amendment gives Rolling Stone the right to print and distribute this magazine. It does NOT apply to private businesses like CVS who have the right to set their own policies.

  20. Daniel says – reply to this


    20

    Re: KimBo77 – Very True. But they shouldn't show a picture where he looks like he could be a model. That is just glorifying a really horrible incident.

  21. adriana j says – reply to this


    21

    Ok, it's not good that this guy its on the cover, and yes 'gringos' are offended because it hurt their people and it was something horrible and blah blah blah… but why are you NOT offended by the thousands of kills that your so beloved army does just for economic interests or the horrible treatment you do to the immigrants? UH UH take that!

  22. Frank says – reply to this


    22

    I don't think the cover "glamorizes," "celebrates" or "glorifies" Dzhokhar
    "Jahar" Tsarnaev; I think it humanizes him. Not all monsters look or act in
    accordance to our stereotypical views of monsters. I think it's worth
    examining how and why a once normal, popular, likeable kid turned so
    bad. The cover photo goes well with the feature story. We should — and
    need to — face and try to understand the monsters amongst us.

  23. Marlon Meadows says – reply to this


    23

    Re: marythemerfairy

    Just because there are worse things going on, and there are, does not excuse every lesser offense. You are throwing around the word sheep just because people have an opinion? Rolling Stone is a major magazine and this is offensive, it has nothing to do with sheep. No one said, "This is the biggest issue going on right now", they just said it was bull shit. It is bull shit. I had no respect for Rolling Stone as a magazine to begin with but this is definitely a little confusing. If they want to cover major news stories, that is fine. But when they put popular celebrities on their cover month after month and then put a terrorist on it, one has to wonder what Rolling Stone Magazine even is anymore. I don't think they know. Do you want to cover news or pop culture Rolling Stone?

    And again, larger problems in the world do not mean that no one is allowed to care about anything else. I guess if you have opinions on anything in your own personal life, television, media or pop culture, you are a sheep? Come on. If you are going to insult the masses, you are going to have to do better than this. People would be sheep if they gladly ate whatever the Rolling Stone fed them. They are not sheep for taking a stand on an issue, no matter how small. And you posting about USA attacking Iraq on Perez Hilton means what exactly? Baahhh to you too douche.

  24. JKD says – reply to this


    24

    For once, I totally agree with you Perez. Well said.



  25. 25

    LMAO the media and people talk about a bomber or shooter like he's Brad and Angelina but turn around get outraged when they have him on a cover with the word "monster" under it? You can't sit there, find out every single detail about his life, talk about it, shove it down other people's throat on the news and social networking then get mad at this..lmao he was glamorized and made a celebrity way, way before this. I can name 5 shooters, I cannot name a single victim. Odd eh?