Tedeschi Food Shops, CVS Won’t Be Selling the Latest Issue of Rolling Stone

The companies say it can’t support putting the alleged bomber’s face front-and-center in their stores.

Photo via Facebook.com

Photo via Facebook.com

UPDATE 7/17/2013, 3 p.m.: Rolling Stone just posted its story on Dzhokhar Tsarnaev with the following statement at the top:

Our hearts go out to the victims of the Boston Marathon bombing, and our thoughts are always with them and their families. The cover story we are publishing this week falls within the traditions of journalism and Rolling Stone’s long-standing commitment to serious and thoughtful coverage of the most important political and cultural issues of our day. The fact that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is young, and in the same age group as many of our readers, makes it all the more important for us to examine the complexities of this issue and gain a more complete understanding of how a tragedy like this happens. –THE EDITORS

PREVIOUSLY: The latest issue of Rolling Stone magazine, which features a close-up of alleged Boston bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, doesn’t hit shelves until Friday. But in some locations that usually carry the magazine, it won’t be hitting the shelves at all.

A sneak peek of the August cover story posted on Rolling Stone’s website on Tuesday night almost immediately sparked controversy, and led to a flurry of complaints, as well as Facebook pages and hashtags on Twitter dedicated to boycotting the latest release, based on the editorial staff’s decision to use a photo of Tsarnaev that makes him look like “a rock star.”

Readers and the general public weren’t the only ones to decide that they won’t support the magazine, however.

On Wednesday afternoon, as the outrage continued to swirl on social media, the owners of Tedeschi’s posted a statement and the above photo, indicating that they would not be placing the issue on their store shelves because they didn’t want to shed light on Tsarnaev, and call attention to his actions based on his portrayal on the cover. “Tedeschi Food Shops supports the need to share the news with everyone, but cannot support actions that serve to glorify the evil actions of anyone. With that being said, we will not be carrying this issue of Rolling Stone. Music and terrorism don’t mix,” the company said in a statement on their Facebook page.

Similarly, CVS chains will also hold off from promoting the Tsarnaev cover. In a statement from the company, representatives said they couldn’t support Rolling Stone. “CVS/pharmacy has decided not to sell the current issue of Rolling Stone featuring a cover photo of the Boston Marathon bombing suspect. As a company with deep roots in New England and a strong presence in Boston, we believe this is the right decision out of respect for the victims of the attack and their loved ones.”

Walgreens and Cumberland Farms later confirmed the same.

The August cover features a selfie of Tsarnaev and is meant to supplement a ”riveting account” of the suspect’s life in Cambridge and Boston. According to the magazine’s editorial staff, the cover is meant to merely highlight a “deeply reported account of the life and times of Boston bomber Jahar Tsarnaev,” with two months worth of detailed reporting and commentary from the suspect’s childhood friends and former classmates, as well as teachers, neighbors, and law enforcement agents.

A manager at the bookshop Trident on Newbury Street said the store hasn’t discussed whether or not the magazine will be displayed as of yet. Requests for comment from other stores in Boston, such as Newbury Comics, were not immediately returned.

  • Liam


    • awegweiser

      Really “good” – let’s let all corporations decide what we can see and read. They already decide who runs Congress.

  • Tex

    I fought these terrorist in iraq, why the fuck are we glamorizing these dumbasses?!? Rolling Stone publication will never be in my household as long as I live!

  • Cris Littrell

    I find it abhorrent that Rolling Stone would glamorize this monster. Not only is it in poor taste but he’s a fucking terrorist and they make him look like Jim Morrison??? Such a disappointment, I urge anyone and everyone to NOT BUY ROLLING STONE, BOYCOTT THIS SHIT ISSUE…send the message to Rolling Stone that they did a bad bad thing and to never attempt such an outrage again.

    • Willease

      So what?! How is this any different than Time Magazine posting Timothy McVeigh on it’s cover?

      • Robert

        Did you even read the article about him? Plus Time never put a “Glamour” photo on the cover of McVeigh. You have no sense of compassion if you’re only reply is “so what”. So what about a city held hostage? So what about 7 yr old boy getting blown up? So what about many who won’t be able to walk again? So what? I say “so what” about YOU and Rolling Stone’s disgusting behavior.

  • Disgusted321

    I am so dumbfounded and then angry that someone at this magazine could somehow rationalize to the point that they would choose to give this terrorist any coverage at all. Their statement that ‘their hearts go out to the victims’? No, I don’t think so. But above and beyond the respect and support of the victims is the attempt to give this terrorist ‘understanding’? To take his photo and photo shop it to make him look like a rock star? This speaks volumes about where the people who work for Rolling Stone magazine’s heads are at. I guess it would have been too much to expect that they might be more fascinated with the GOOD in people who risked their own lives to save others and compassion for those who will struggle the rest of their lives with injuries caused by this evil person. I DON”T CARE how he became a terrorist. I don’t want to know anything about him, except that he is convicted and sentenced. If they had to cover the Boston Bombing at all, I cannot understand why they didn’t do an issue on the people who died, the people who have life long injuries, the first responders.

    All I can think, is that Rolling Stone magazine just wants to create controversy no matter what they have to do to get it. I am SO HAPPY that stores are refusing to sell this issue of their magazine and I sincerely hope that their willingness to put out this issue, will make some subscribers stop and think about what kind of an organization they are supporting.

    • TEricsson

      If you don’t care how terrorists are created, you must not care about preventing it, but only punishing once it happens. This is not a very efficient way to address any problem. But for those who simply like punishment, it might be a satisfying conclusion.

      • liz4321

        TEricsson, if you actually think you or someone else can ‘figure out’ how terrorists are created, then I have to wonder how you would ever come to that conclusion. And that you have some idea in your head that terrorism can be prevented? Seriously? Terrorists and people who murder are people who hate and have no respect and they have been around since the beginning of time and always will be. Many many people have tried to ‘prevent’ and ‘understand’ terrorism to no avail.

        Hate is a choice, that some cultures and some interpretations of Islam actually promote. What is a jihad, except encouragement from their community and their religion to kill and all supposedly in the name of god. And when they have the belief that they will be a hero in their culture and will also be rewarded in heaven, that is what allows someone in that culture to make THE CHOICE, because that is what it boils down to, to kill.

        Everyone who makes this choice always has a reason why they did it. No it doesn’t mean anything to me what their reason is. They chose to do that and yes, they have to face the penalties and take responsibility for their choices.

        And if this is all in support of the article in RS magazine, then from where I am standing, you are seeing this entire situation of the bombing from the perspective of the person who killed all these people and not at all from the perspective of the victims. Because if you were, you could understand why this article and cover is completely wrong. Don’t you think it is odd that you are not in support of what the victims need, and you are not interested in who they are and why they are GOOD but instead you are more interested in why this terrorist is BAD. You have it all twisted around but evidently you don’t see that.

  • john

    rolling stone has lost it’s sole.

    Once upon a time, you dressed so fine
    You threw the bums a dime in your prime, didn’t you?
    People’d call, say, “Beware doll, you’re bound to fall”
    You thought they were all kiddin’ you

    You used to laugh about
    Everybody that was hangin’ out
    Now you don’t talk so loud, now you don’t seem so proud
    About havin’ to be scrounging around for your next meal

  • squinney

    Who cares. Is this not OLD NEWS already…. MEDIA? Move on people !

    • GodBlessDubyah

      You’re the kind of person that forgot about September 11, too, didn’t you? “Who cares”. You are so ignorant.

  • Rick Txsixshooter

    These stores should stop carrying the magazine forever, not just for this month. Glamorizing a terrorists sends the wrong message.

    • awegweiser

      Then they should stop carrying any magazine with Bush or Cheney on the cover. These are terrorists responsible for a lot more than the death of a little boy and injuries to many, with their phony wars and the thousands of men and women sent there. Besides, I would miss Cheney’s smirk and Bush’s blank stare. In addition, any one who has not been in a lengthy coma or has the brains of a turnip, is well aware of the message, “glamour” or not.

  • guest173

    That’s a great decision for those companies. The police officer’s photos would convey to young people a more realistic portrayal, murder isn’t glamorous.

    • awegweiser

      This is a bullshit decision.Corporate censorship and they have no right to decide what I choose to buy and read. What do you find glamorous about the photo and story of this creep? I don’t care much to see some members of Congress on magazine covers too but they must be there – even the likes of scary nutballs like Zimmerman, Palin and Bachman.

  • TEricsson

    There is no difference between this cover and the news magazines that featured cover photos of Timothy McVeigh, Osama Bin Laden or Joseph Stalin for that matter. If you want to know something about people and why they act, you can’t be afraid to look at them. Might I suggest that the discomfort around this terrorist is that many people find him cute and that disturbs them. Forced to look into his face, particularly on a magazine cover, the experience is disturbingly close to looking at any of the other interchangeable scruffy teenagers whom we are programmed to idolise.

  • awegweiser

    This is flat out corporate censorship. Giant Eagle, CVS, et al have sold magazines with other “:controversial” figures” such as Charles Manson, foreign dictators, some members of Congress, Sarah Palin , ad nauseum. They have no right to decide what I choose to buy. Another blow by corporate America to what we used to call democray.

    • Jesse94

      No one is telling you what you should or should not buy or read. And just as they have no right to decide what you choose to buy, you have no right to decide what they choose to sell and/or promote.
      Moreover, there is a huge difference between Charles Manson, and Sarah Palin and members of Congress in terms of controversy.

      • awegweiser

        When a vendor of reading materials selectively picks out a single issue, of the hundreds they have sold, because they don’t like it, that is censorship and they are clearly limiting my access. As for Palin and the Congress, it is a matter of opinion, but much of what they have said and done is far more dangerous to the nation as a whole than a pair of nut jobs intent on murdering people.