In the November issue of Rolling Stone magazine, the front cover features a political cartoon portraying the current Congress. The article is called: "Time to Go! Incompetent, Lazy, and Corrupt: Inside the Worst Congress Ever." Is something this politically biased fair game in the magazine world?
Of course, in the past, Rolling Stone has been known to put its political views out there blatantly. It does not purport to be an objective publication. However, as someone who is not a usual reader of Rolling Stone, I was taken aback when I saw such an overt political message, especially on the cover of a mostly music and entertainment magazine. These days, it seems like magazines like Rolling Stone are struggling to keep up with celebrity-laden magazines like People.
It's somewhat refreshing to see that Rolling Stone has the nerve to comment on today's politics in such a tough way. This is probably not far at all from its original political standpoints put out there in the 60s and 70s when the magazine first came about. With all the bad entertainment news out there, it's nice to see that Rolling Stone hasn't strayed too far from its original publication.
In addition, the content critical of Congress probably coincides with the majority of their music-loving readers. I definitely agree that this type of political commentary is fair game because it's expected and normal for Rolling Stone.
However, did the cover and article go too far? The cover portrays images of Congress popping out of Capital Hill. Such images include an oil rig, a gun, a greedy pig with money on its fork, a rat, a bible, a militaristic eagle, and even Mark Foley chasing after a child with his tongue hanging out, among others.
There is an obvious and unavoidable agenda in the article in persuading its readers to vote one way in the upcoming elections. It seems as if Rolling Stone has no problem riding in the face of danger even if it means offending readers.
Then again, being so up front about its political views, rather than hiding it in subtle language, provides more credibility in my eyes. The fact that the magazine chose a cartoon seems to say that one doesn't have to take it seriously. Most readers or newsstand readers will take it at face value. If you don't agree, you probably won't think anything of it, and it probably won't change your political view because of the public awareness of what's going on in Congress and the massive coverage of it.
In general, the cover didn't bother me, but I was surprised to see political content on the cover of an entertainment magazine.
Aimee Rawlins @ October 30, 2006 - 3:18pm
I actually found this cover problematic. I am a frequent Rolling Stone reader who generally identifies with their liberal coverage, however I was disappointed that a magazine with so many talented contributors couldn't come up with a more creative cover. The viewpoint that this cartoon embodies is not new or challenging and instead seemed lazy and outdated.
I have long admired Rolling Stone for their political coverage at times when the rest of the mainstream media refused to ask the difficult questions. They have published countless articles that are provocative and enlightening without coming across as reactionary and hyper-liberal. This cover - and other political articles published in the last six months - loses sight of this balance and instead reads as knee-jerk liberalism, which is exactly what the Democrats don't need at a time when they are trying to appeal to moderate voters.
In my opinion, Rolling Stone loses credibility with covers such as these, particularly with moderates who are uncomfortable with the venom behind the cartoon. I don't think that the editors should temper the passion or political consciousness that goes into these articles. However, I would be more impressed with a publication that is able to convey a liberal agenda without alienating those in the middle.
»