Tsarnaev on the Cover of Rolling Stone: A Simple Read on The Banalities of Evil

Attacked by web users for having placed Dzhokhar Tsarnaev – accused of being behind the Boston bombing – on its front cover, Rolling Stone magazine defended its cover, saying that “The cover story we are publishing this week falls within the traditions of journalism and Rolling Stone’s long-standing commitment to serious and thoughtful coverage of the most important political and cultural issues of our day.”

The magazine added that “The fact that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is young, and in the same age group as many of our readers, makes it all the more important for us to examine the complexities of this issue and gain a more complete understanding of how a tragedy like this happens.”

A Poorly Chosen Photo

By choosing these arguments to defend itself, the magazine evidently refuses to see the question at the heart of the controversy. It’s in no way at all about denying the legitimacy of journalists explaining how one becomes a terrorist in America today.

Note that, incidentally, not too long ago France 3 took the same approach in reviewing [Mohammed] Merah’s biography. What shocked people wasn’t so much the subject as much as the cover photo. Not only did a presumed terrorist have the honor of a front cover, but that his face was charming and sexy like the stars who are regularly on the front page.

One cannot deny Rolling Stone’s editorial responsibility. We cannot condemn Tsarnaev for having the look of a romantic youth. On the other hand, one might have wanted the magazine to have chosen this photo, which Tsarnaev himself had chosen for his Facebook profile.

As we learned from Roland Barthes a long time ago, a press photo’s connotations derive not from the photo itself but from the idea the journalist assigns to it.

A Break from Traditional Stereotypes

What is the idea here? To show that a terrorist can be “attractive?” That he can appear non-threatening? Of course, this shocks us as we are conditioned by stereotypes conveyed by countless myths that tell us that one may identify a terrorist by his ugly face.

We are conditioned by racial profiling, so an unshaven young man with an angry look and dirty hair corresponds with what we expect. A while ago Didier Goupy, a photographer who was shooting photos for me, showed me photos he took of Le Pen. He had taken off his glasses and, smiling, one saw him in a new light: relaxed, kind and genial.

These images are shocking because we are habituated to photos that journalists select to better illustrate their articles and correspond to ideas they are discussing, or even to show their own feelings.

What Tsarnaev’s picture would say if it could talk: “I don’t have to fit the part” or: “The devil can have the face of a cherub.” The series “Dexter” in its own way confirms this: The murderer is played by a small, cute actor.

Contrary to Journalistic Investigation

All this in fact seems to hearken to a simplified Arendt-style reading on the banality of evil: One isn’t born a terrorist and one isn’t a terrorist because one is different. One becomes it thanks to circumstances which can be explained from a journalistic perspective.

Once again: If the intention is completely justified – this is also Al-Aswany’s fictional plan in “Chicago” – is it necessary to catch the reader’s eye with a photo of this good-looking young man? I doubt it.

How can one not see in this approach, which reaffirms the common narcissism of every Facebook user, an acceptance in this presumed terrorist’s face that contradicts the investigative journalism approach?