Rolling Stone Puzzled By Hitler Cover Backlash

Rolling Stone magazine has issued a response to the backlash following the release of their latest issue, which critics say portrays Adolf Hitler in a “romantic” light. Rolling Stone’s senior editor Christian Hoard says he’s “puzzled” by the public’s response.

“I don’t get it, basically,” he told reporters yesterday. “We were just trying to show how those who become brutal dictators and orchestrators of genocides start out as regular people with hopes and dreams.”

The August cover features a photo believed to have been taken in Vienna sometime between 1909 and 1913, while the future Führer was struggling in poverty after having been denied admission to the Vienna Academy of the Arts. The obvious selfie depicts a youthful Hitler, sans iconic moustache, in soft light, hunched in a homeless shelter surrounded by watercolor paraphernalia.

“He seems to have the regret of a young man who should have listened to his parents and gone into civil service,” said a Rolling Stone junior editor who wished to remain anonymous. “It’s a remarkable photo. You can see in his eyes that he’s starting to think not only, ‘How can I wipe out an entire ethnic group,’ but also, ‘How can I destroy at least one continent, possibly more?’”

Several retailers, including CVS and Rite Aid, have refused to sell the controversial issue, claiming that it gives Hitler “the celebrity treatment” and “glamourizes” his atrocities. “When it comes to selfies,” said a media spokesperson for CVS, “the public has spoken. Enough is enough.”

In light of the Rolling Stone controversy, Time magazine has reconsidered featuring this selfie of a tousled and Byronic Stalin on its September cover.
In light of the Rolling Stone controversy, Time magazine has reconsidered featuring this selfie of a tousled and Byronic Stalin on its September cover.

photo credit: pbs.org

I have just learned about this, and it is the best thing ever. Visit Ask Sexy Stalin!

8 thoughts on “Rolling Stone Puzzled By Hitler Cover Backlash

  1. History is history and publishing pictures and information that people did not already know even if its not quite so atrocious is still a public service. Our culture just loves to get all wadded up over anything they deem politically incorrect.

    1. Public service is one thing. The cover shot is entirely different. Sure, Rolling Stone is within their free speech rights to print this article. Just as I am well within my rights to not give them my hard earned money. Simple as that.

    2. Does Rolling Stone have the right to publish that cover? Yep. Do retailers have the right to refuse to sell the issue? Yep. Do I sort of think the cover was a wee itty bit in bad taste, but absolutely support its publication? Yep. We all win. Go Constitution.

Comments are closed.