PressEthic

Before you read this post, click here to see a recent cover of Rolling Stone magazine. Look at it for a second, and then continue reading.

Finished?

Yes, on the same cover that teases readers to enjoy a look at "the body and soul of America's hottest starlet," Rolling Stone decides it's going to cover the autism epidemic. Naturally.

The cover of a magazine is its draw on the newsstand, but in many ways, it may also be its downfall. As a reader, it's hard to take the journalism of a publication like Rolling Stone (the writing in which I happen to enjoy, which may contribute to the fact that the covers annoy me) seriously when the cover makes the publication look only skin deep. On this particular cover, it almost seems like Rolling Stone is torn in adolescent angst, unable to decide if it wants to hang out with the popular celebs like the other glossy magazines or you know, puts on its reporters hat and cover a story that's affecting American children at unprecedented rates.

Magazine covers don't have to look like Grant Wood's American Gothic, by any means. But with an emphasis on skin to sell the magazine, it's a short mental jump to viewing the whole publication as drivel.

Say what you will about its journalism, but at least the covers of the New York Post are honest about what the publication is. The paper will write something like "KATE COCAINE SHOCKER!!!" on the cover and then follow up on it like the tabloid it is. But Rolling Stone, with starlet covers balanced against serious journalism, often feels like you're watching Ozzie Osborne give a lecture on the laws of thermodynamics: he might be right on with everything, but for some reason you can't quite believe him.