Well the hardworking staff has been on hiatus lately, but we’re back now to chronicle the latest installment of the Great Boston Media Watchdog Fight.
Start, as usual, with Underdog Boston Herald’s Wayne’s World webcast:
Rolling Stone’s cover shot makeover of accused Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev drew heavy fire from the Boston Herald’s “Press Party” panel in the latest episode of the media criticism web show.
The panel blasted the magazine for being insensitive to victims of the bombing by showing Tsarnaev in rock star pose on the cover. The panel also took on the media’s handling of the aftermath of the George Zimmerman trial. Cashman criticized MSNBC for allowing host Al Sharpton to push his protest against the verdict. Plus, the show spotlighted a San Francisco TV station broadcasting bogus racist names of the pilots involved in Asiana Airlines crash, as well as a Providence TV reporter’s humorous attempt to show viewers how to ward off bear attacks.
(The Press Partyniks still refuse to upload their festivities to YouTube, so you’ll have to click around for yourselves.)
But . . . sample quotes from the Rolling Stone cover rumpus:
You’ve probably seen or heard about it – and no doubt have a strong reaction to it – The rock ‘n’ roll institution gives the Marathon Bomber a glam makeover. Unbelievable, but true.
Terrible terrible example of human excrement.
Rolling Stone should hang their head in shame.
Crosstown at WGBH’s Big Dog Beat the Press, it was, not surprisingly, a different story.
I thought it was a pretty effective cover. The reason I thought it was effective was because it created a sense of cognitive dissonance. You see kind of the teen idol look of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev but then you see forthrightly the bomber and the monster.
There was no mention of the victims, no input from the community who were especially outraged.
I do think there’s some concern about putting this in front of a lot of other alienated kids who are having violent fantasies and who see this and think, gee, maybe I ought to turn this fantasy into reality. And I think that’s a legitimate concern.
So who had the more interesting – and substantive – discussion?
You tell us.