The real problem with that Rolling Stone cover

In the wake of public outrage over the Boston bomb suspect´s Rolling Stone cover, aren´t we forgetting people used to be innocent until proven guilty?

“He was a charming kid with a bright future. But no-one saw the pain he was hiding or the monster he would become.” So begins Rolling Stone magazine´s controversial portrait of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the kid who allegedly planted bombs that killed 3 and injured 264  in Boston last April. Rolling Stone follows this dramatic introduction with a short note from the editor, gently assuring any readers who are rabid with fury that the story ´falls within the traditions of journalism´.

If they mean the tradition of using shock tactics in a cynical bid to generate publicity and sell more copies of their magazine then I agree; sadly that´s nothing new. But in every other way, the Rolling Stone story breaks not only ´traditions of journalism´, but several media laws and ethical boundaries that are crucial in a fair, free, democratic society.  Cast your mind back, if you can, to that sunny and carefree pre-9/11 world, where intelligent people didn´t have panic attacks over dark-skinned men on buses carrying electronic cigarettes (it would have been impossible to believe, right?). Back then, the Rolling Stone article would have caused outrage for a very different reason- it assumes the guilt of a man who is still awaiting trial.

Yes, we should be angry. And very concerned. We should be looking very closely at the emotive and dehumanizing ´monster´ label Rolling Stone have pinned to the alleged terrorist and we should be asking: What happens when the trial begins? Will there even be a trial? How can we expect the jurors not to be influenced by mainstream media´s premature guilty verdict? And what if- just what if- Dzhokhar and his brother are innocent?

You have the right to remain silent: the war on our civil liberties

When Jacqueline Maitland was arrested at a peaceful protest against ID cards this year, it was at the behest of the Home Office. Bundled into a police car and locked in a cell, her fingerprints were taken, along with a DNA sample she was given no explanation for. Her associate Charlie was not allowed to use the telephone to arrange for her children to be picked up from school, and despite police telling Jacqueline she and her colleagues were ‘obviously not dangerous’, her four-year old son was separated from her for the full six hours’ detainment period.

Welcome to modern Britain, where the fundamental freedoms set out in the 1950 European Convention of Human Rights have been steadily and systematically dismantled since New Labour came to power: freedom from torture, freedom of speech and expression, freedom to assemble, freedom to a fair trial, and freedom to privacy. Then there’s Habeas Corpus, the idea of being innocent until proven guilty: a legal civil liberty since 1679, nullified in the blink of an eye by the 2005 Prevention of Terrorism Act.