On the cover of Rolling Stone

“But the thrill we’ve never known.

Is the thrill that’ll get ya when you get your picture.

on the cover of the ROLLING STONE.”

Remember that song sung by Dr. Hook and the Medicine Show back in the ’70s? I loved that song when it came out. Heck, I still sing it in the car when it is pumped out on the radio. But now a lot of people are not thrilled with the recent cover of Rolling Stone magazine. Most definitely they are not going out to buy five copies for their mother, either.

Hardest hit are the good people of Boston. Many of the victims and families of the April bombing in that fair city are ticked off.

The cover that has spawned such outrage features accused bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnnaev, advertising an article within titled “The Bomber.” It is not the article being called into question — very little has been said about that — it is the choice of the cover photo stirring up the ruckus.

Bad taste? Yes. Could it have been done with a different subject or model? Yes. Are people within their rights to be so angry about it? Yes. Did it somehow glorify him and the horrific act he and his brother did? I would say no to that one. Bostonians, from the mayor on down to those injured in that horrid act of homegrown terrorism, are rightfully angered.

But it was also a cynical act of marketing genius. It is not the first time this magazine has done so. Back in 1970, Rolling Stone featured Charles Manson on its cover. Remember him? I was just a kid back then. Both of these covers generated a ton of free publicity through controversy. I do not know if the Mason cover made as nasty a splash as the current cover. The 2013 issue has made waves in that some store chains are refusing to sell them and pulling existing issues off the shelves.

Time magazine has done similar covers for its “Man of the Year” series. That list is stunning in its portrayal of infamy: Adolf Hitler in 1938, Joseph Stalin made it twice in ’39 and ’42, Nikita Khrushchev in ’57. One I recall raising a major fuss was the Ayatullah Khomeni in ’79. I was in high school when this cover made the rounds as topic of discussion and debate in more than a few classes.

Now then last question; did Rolling Stone have right to publish this photo on its cover? Well, there is a pesky little thing that says it can. While I do not like the cover, I will abide the magazine’s right to put it out, even defend it. That pesky little thing? Well, you will find it in the U.S. Constitution under the heading of the First Amendment. Yes, like it or not, this falls under that pesky thing called freedom of speech. This cover of Rolling Stone is a true test of the First Amendment.

All the attention this cover photo has generated is going to be a major shot in the arm for magazine sales, just wait and see. From CNN to this little-known independent columnist of a small-town newspaper in Alaska, the free advertising and publicity is worth millions in marketing dollars. That is a cold-blooded fact, and I believe that was the intention from day one.

Still, I can’t help feeling bad for the families of the victims of the bombing in Boston. I, too, feel outrage at this slap in the face or a kick to the gut with a boot. It may be a marketing work of genius, but it is cold, calculating and done with little regard for those who have born the brunt of the terror inflicted by two twisted, evil minds on a beautiful April day during what was to have been the end of a great race, the Boston Marathon. Instead, it became a bloodbath in seconds.

These are very sad facts. I would like to think this was not forgotten in the staff rooms of the Rolling Stone. I could be wrong. I hope that this in the end will go after the far bigger question this whole thing raises, that final question we all have been asking since the horror was unleashed in two blasts of homemade bombs. It’s loaded question with just one word: Why?

Wasilla resident Daniel D. Grota retired from the U.S. Army after more than 21 years of service.