I’m going to line up behind Boston Mayor Thomas Menino’s description of the latest Rolling Stone magazine cover.

He calls it a “disgrace.”

I’m with you, Mr. Mayor.

Rolling Stone put the face of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the surviving suspect in the April 15 Boston Marathon bombing that terrorized the nation, not to mention the city where the event took place.

http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/07/17/poll-should-rolling-stone-have-put-tsarnaev-on-its-cover/

Yes, it’s a bizarre decision. The magazine usually features rock stars or other cultural icons. Tsarnaev, though, is a class by himself. He’s a suspected terrorist who’s alleged action killed three people and injured more than 100 others, some of them grievously.

Rolling Stone editors defend the cover, saying the magazine always has honored the principles of good journalism.

The Boston Marathon bombing cut deeply into the nation’s emotional psyche. Surely the magazine editors knew what the reaction would be when they plastered Tsarnaev’s face on the cover of the magazine, but they chose to do it anyway. My sense is that Rolling Stone is motivated more by provocation than solid journalism.

Rolling Stone editors wanted to provoke a visceral reaction and they have succeeded.

Several retailers, including some that do business in Amarillo, have said they won’t sell the magazine with Tsarnaev’s picture on the cover. I concur with that decision.

I’m wondering how the magazine could have told the story without the visible image. Here’s a thought: a few words of text across the top of the cover page that say something like: “Boston Marathan bombing suspect – from big man on campus to alleged terrorist. Turn to Page 10.”

Wouldn’t that have done the job?