Ozzy Osbourne on Rolling Stone Cover Controversy: 'I Wouldn't Put Him on a Roll of Toilet Paper'

Prince of Darkness weighs in on the bomber cover, as Disturbed frontman David Draiman further elaborates his previous statements.

Ultimate Guitar

Black Sabbath frontman Ozzy Osbourne recently gave his thoughts on the controvertial cover of the latest Rolling Stone magazine issue featuring Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.

During a chat on WAAF Radio (via Blabbermouth), Ozzy criticized the magazine's actions, saying, "I'm sorry, I wouldn't put [Tsarnaev] on a roll of toilet paper, let alone the front cover of Rolling Stone."

The singer also gave a word of support to Boston, noting that "it will take more than two idiots to stop Boston. Boston is a strong town, man. It's my kind of town."

As one of the rockers who stood out the most in condemning the cover, Disturbed frontman David Draiman elaborated his thoughts further in a separate Revolt TV interview, comparing the Rolling Stone's decision to "a pimp trying to whore something out for his own best interests. I find it completely disgusting and repugnant, he added.

When asked about what exactly does he object to such extent regarding the magazine's front page, Draiman said: "They are already putting him on the cover, number one. Number two, they picked the cutest goddamn picture they could find of the guy. They airbrushed the hell out of it. They made him look all pretty, because he's got some sort of sick fan club of these little girls that follow him that are all about, 'Free Dzhokhar, free Dzhokhar.'

"Why? 'Cause he's cute? 'Cause you find him attractive? And somebody who's cute with tousled hair couldn't possibly have committed something like this? People are out of their goddamn minds."

The singer also pointed out that he did actually read the article, rather than just judging solely based on the cover.

"I've read the article and I still feel the same way," he said. "And you know something?! Sometimes it's just crazy. You don't need to know how this guy came to be, who he was. Everybody's their own person, everybody's capable of making their own choices, everybody's cognizant of their own choices. And the minute that you start blaming everything around you for why somebody loses their goddamn mind is the minute that everybody comes up with an excuse to be a maniac."

After causing a severe negative backlash, Rolling Stone posted an official statement to defend the cover, saying that it "falls within the traditions of journalism."

YouTube preview picture

61 comments sorted by best / new / date

    "Gun down a school or blow up a car, the media circus will make you a star" - Steven Wilson
    "I'm sorry, I wouldn't put [Tsarnaev] on a roll of toilet paper, let alone the front cover of Rolling Stone." 20 guesses as to what ozzy called him?
    We can guess all we want but I think UG will be removing any comments that are even close to what Ozzy called him.
    That was just what WAAF decided to say that he called him, because they don't know what the **** he said either. In fact, all the quotes from the interview with him were probably just one big educated guess.
    He probably just said "him". They do the bracket thing very often when people say "him/her/them" instead of others names in interviews.
    Lee Makky
    Ozzy and David are right, it was wrong to put him on the cover, and Rolling Stone cant justify it.
    Rolling Stone is the worst publication there is. At least other mags don't just constantly rate the same 3 bands or people (being The Beatles, Bob Dylan and Kieth Richards) as the best musicians and artists of all time and make horribly misguided 'top 100 lists' and now putting someone who did something terrible on the front, I don't give a damn how he got there as long as he gets what he deserves.
    You know, people like to mock Ozzy a lot for the way he talks, but the dude is actually a pretty intelligent man when it comes down to things.
    Classic UG... Headline refers to Ozzy; actual article is 15% about Ozzy, 85% about David Draiman.
    People complaining about this cover is likely exactly what RS wanted. More people that complain = more sites that cover the story, which ultimately means more potential sales for the magazine. With big time artists complaining, they also are getting publicity so it's a win win for everyone.
    Normally I would agree, the phrase "any publicity is good publicity" usually holds true. But in the case of RS, they are already so widely known that I don't think it really works the same. It's not like they are going to get any new subscriber's from this or get their name out to people who have never heard of them. They just pissed a lot of people off, which I highly doubt was their intention.
    Well, here's my thought. Magazine sales and subscriptions have been down industry wide. Advertisement revenue I'm sure has shrunk. Somewhere in RS magazine, I'm sure they had a meeting of the minds to discuss the potential backlash from this. IMO, they decided the rewards were worth the risk. And even though people are outraged, I'm sure it has raised everyone's intrigue to read the story. I personally don't agree with how the media have been treating these psychopaths. By putting them on covers of magazines, getting mentioned every 5 minutes on CNN, Fox, and MSNBC will unfortunately cause an even greater potential for more of this to happen. But I can see RS's reasoning, even if I don't agree. One last point - RS has been a magazine known to put out covers that are hot button topics, or provocative cover pics...so I think this type of display is not as big of a shock to their readership as say would putting him on the cover of Home Gardening.
    People keep saying that, but that just makes no sense. You're saying they got what they want, but no one wants to buy the magazine because of the cover? Don't they want more money, which most likely isn't what they are getting? If they had put the police or the victims on the cover, but still had the same story they'd be making much more money.
    BOTTOM LINE: Rolling Stone had every right to publish an article that delved into the psychology of one of the "Boston Bombers", and also, they had the right to put him on the cover. However, information can actually be gained from the article. I study Psychology and really found the article to be of some interest. As for the cover, that was 100% irresponsible and distasteful, not to mention disrespectful. How would you like to have lost someone close in that tragedy and then go to the grocery store only to see a glorifying picture of the person responsible for killing your loved one? These things have to be taken into account. The article was great journalism, but putting him on the cover was one of the most disgusting displays of journalism that I have ever witnessed.
    I see it as journalistic integrity rather than glorification. Seeing that picture along with reading the article makes a statement about who he used to be. I know people despise Tsarnaev and may not want to see his face, but it doesn't change the fact that the cover makes a journalistic statement. I personally don't see this case as any different than seeing the same photo all over various large media outlets in the weeks and months after the attack. I suppose the main reason my opinion differs from most everyone else's is because I see the cover photo as informative rather than glamorous.
    I do not despise Tsarnaev. I personally sympathize for individuals like him, however, "journalistic integrity" does not mean anything goes. That is the same rationale people use with freedom of speech, which in your opinion, should apparently mean that "GOD HATES FAGS" at funerals is perfectly acceptable. A photo can only be so informative. Actual words and descriptions are what make things truly informative. Journalistic integrity or not, it is simply DISTASTEFUL... and this is coming from someone who finds very few things in life offensive and distasteful. You are entitled to your own opinion though. It's a beautiful world.
    They don't have to, as in most countries these days we have things called freedoms. Freedom of expression, freedom of the press, etc. They own a magazine, they can put whatever the hell they want in there. If you don't like it, don't buy the magazine. All these musicians acting like they're on the moral highground is annoying me a little. I personally find stories of people that somehow did something horrible very interesting, as it asks the question 'How did this guy become like this?'. I lost a lot of respect for Draiman when he said "And you know something?! Sometimes it's just crazy. You don't need to know how this guy came to be, who he was." Maybe he doesn't want to know, but with that comment he is telling us that we don't have the right to be interested in these things, and nobody has the right to report on them. That is just silly. You may not like it, but RS magazine most certainly has the right to report on this. It just shows your own inability to deal with tragedy if you want to act like it never happened. Also, where's the outrage over the 1970 Charles Manson cover and story (for which RS even won a National Magazine Award)? Oh, that's right, because that happened ages ago, nobody really cares anymore. Picking and choosing tragedies to be outraged about seems a little hypocritical to me. I feel like it's better to think for yourself and analyze information coming your way than to police and censor what others say and put out to the world; Tsarnaev will never be a hero or a 'good person' in my eyes, and if one cover of a magazine would change that, I'd be pretty delusional and crazy to start with anyways. /mytwocents
    Of course they have the freedom and right to put him on the cover, but just because you have the freedom to do something doesn't mean you should do it without considering the consequences. With freedom comes responsibility, and glamourising a killer is irresponsible. Do you really expect people to be outraged by a cover 43 years ago, before most people on this site were born? People get less annoyed by things as time goes on, that's a fact of life. The time scale doesn't make a difference, people are just more outraged with the Tsarnaev cover because it's a more recent example of irresponsible journalism. Why is that so hypocritical?
    I just think it's hypocritical because that was exact same situation. Hell, he was found guilty of killing 9 people. Putting a picture on a cover that I have seen atleast 200 times already (in any media) is not glorifying him. I don't see it as irresponsible either; If that was true, all the news-coverage of him so far was irresponsible, and really any coverage of anything bad would be. The world we live in is not a happy place, but investigating and talking about it may actually give us some insight into this place, instead of yelling about the fact that people are discussing it.
    They have the freedom to do it and people have the freedom to complain about it and say it was a stupid thing to do.
    You do have that, and I support you completely in your freedom. I however do disagree with this point of view. You may think it was stupid, you may think it was horrible... My problem lies with the ongoing sentiment of people saying that morals should rule everything that goes on. Saying "that was a stupid thing to do" is an opinion which I accept completely (not as my own, but you get my point); "THEY SHOULD NOT DO THAT" however implies that these subjective morals are more important to you than that freedom, and that those morals SHOULD be adapted in the media without question, which is something I cannot agree with.
    If morals are subjective and so-called "freedom" trumps these subjective morals, then who is anyone to say what Hitler or Lenin did was wrong? Hitler firmly believed what he was doing was for the good of the human race and the betterment of society. Yet no one short of a neo-nazi is going to tell you that Hitler lived a moral life. Why? Because morals aren't subjective. Like it or not, there is a moral code that society lives by. It's what makes killing wrong at all in the first place. Now, if morals are subjective, and if I therefore believed that murder was morally alright for me to commit, by your reasoning, I should have the freedom to commit murder, and no one should have the right to stop me because my "freedom" is more important than one's "subjective morals", namely being the belief that it is wrong to commit murder. Do you see where this is going?
    Morals are subjective. They're an idea on what is right, which is by definition not an objective truth. We've accepted some of them altogether, which is a good thing. I don't say all morals should be discarded, but I also don't believe they have a place in the media. The media is supposed to report on what happened (everything that happened, if you ask me), without judging it and without telling people how they should feel about it. Morals are important in our individual actions, but when your job is just to report on something and share the facts, they are not. Killing people is morally wrong, talking about a guy that killed people is not. Also, I'm done for today. It's okay if you folks don't agree with me, I appreciate anyone that even took the time to read these comments anyways. Just remember that sharing ideas and information with eachother in a real, grownup way is the way to grow as a person. And by that standard, I'm pretty impressed at the level of the debate that has happened here. Cheers!
    You saying "morals aren't subjective" seems pretty subjective...
    It's really just the definition of the word, to be honest. Ideas we have on what is 'good' or 'bad' can never be total objective truths.
    It's not that it's disgusting to see or read, not to me - the problem is that it's terrifying to see on the shelves. It's just another addition to our culture's love - our culture's ADORATION - for terrible people. If someone is angry, unbalanced, disturbed, whatever, and they watch the news and see 24/7 coverage of the same four stills of a school shooter, or go down to Wal-mart and see this on the racks, then I dare say that it will be a tad embarrassing for RS to get inside the head of the next terrorist, because they'll be a significant part of that individual's fall. Ah, but, Journalism. They can just say a rival rag caused him to kill people.
    Here's where we see the world differently; You see ADORATION for terrorists, I see interest. I personally don't know a single person that heard about this and said "Well, Tsarnaev seems like a swell guy, wish I could be like him!". I am intrigued what could push a person that's doing pretty well into a state that he could do something this horrible. They're big events because they're so tragic, and thusly everyone will talk about it a lot, any media will report it and the name and image of this guy pops up all over the place. It's impossible to base the world of journalism on 'what might happen if someone mentally ill may see it', responsibility can only go so far. One cannot shut down all the fast-food restaurants because some people are getting fat.
    I guess I see your point, except... "Some people getting fat" and "influencing mass murder" are two completely opposite ends of the spectrum of responsibility. However, while we're at that topic, I will make a point that even in the realm of food service responsibility, places like McDonalds have been found and held legally responsible for making people fat, hence why they had to slash the Super Size option and start labeling everything with nutrition facts. Because the one thing they all have in common even between places like McDonalds and Rolling Stone is that they consciously do things that they know are bad for the consumer without the consumer consciously realizing it, which is where their responsibility lies. And you're 100% right, you would have to be pretty god damn delusional to see the cover of the RS magazine and adore, heroize, or be influenced by this person, but that's exactly what this debate is about. The media (and IMO, all other forms included: news, TV, papers, etc.) completely encourages and sensationalizes this kind of behavior by making these people infamous, which may be the final push that one delusional person needs to shoot up another theater or school, or bomb a marathon. Do you notice that these kinds of events keep increasing in frequency and scale? In my opinion, people wouldn't even THINK of doing something like this if they didn't constantly hear about it and see these people all over the media. Seeing how they can make an impact in such a destructive way... It's what allures them to the idea. It's all about the impact and impression left by them. When it's not religion-related, the culprit is always some loser who had nothing going for him in life, and a horrible terrorist act is the best way they could find to make an impression and leave a permanent mark in society's history books. Without an impression to leave, I guarantee this kind of thing would happen about 20% as often as it does now, and in much less ferocity. It's just like the policy to not negotiate with terrorists in hostage situations: If you take the motive out of it, then no one will bother doing it. In my opinion, writing the article itself is no issue. I think it's good to get a bit introspective with these kinds of people (and it truly is interesting too, like you said) and try to understand the catalyst events that took place that could have ultimately led to this. However, on the other side, I understand what Draiman is getting at, because everyone is responsible for their own actions and people are not consistent like a common compound or element. We each react differently to every event so the same two events could effect people in different ways, causing one to go over the edge and commit an act such as this, and the other may be able to mentally handle it and continue without it being a blip on their radar. But I personally have no qualms with the article. It's just that, plastering this guy's face everywhere for all of the world to see... They (not just RS, but all of the media) know exactly what they're doing by making this guy a national icon.
    I went with the fastfood analogy because that was the first thing that popped up in my head; I do not believe spreading this article will always be detrimental to the phsysical or mental health of the consumer though, in the way bad food is simply bad for you. Also, I don't see a definite increase in the amount of terrorist-attacks in the past couple of years. (http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/terroris... I just think the media can't be expected to take responsibility for the people that might take in some information and do something weird with it. Crazy folks/extremists/etc. will always be around (the list above displays that quite well). Also, because of the role of media in society I think it's impossible to not talk a lot about it and throw his face around. When it just happened, everyone wanted to know who did it, and now that we know we're supposed to not talk about him at all? Doesn't make sense to me. It's a big story. A shitty, horrible story, but a big one nonetheless. One may hypothesize that if we wouldn't talk about it, the frequency and scale of these events would decrease... But one cannot prove that, nor is it actually a possibility. I know my opinion is not the most popular one, but it's what makes sense to me. Thanks for respecting that and coming back with something you actually put a lot of thought into; It's appreciated!
    You've got a point - no one loves terrible people, that's true. We just love covering them. 24/7 news coverage of what they did, whether or not we found them, and whether or not they're alive if we did. To someone in a precarious mental state, the line between adoration and interest is blurred. And ya know, I wouldn't have a problem with this particular instance usually. I wouldn't have a problem with an article written about his "fall" or even the fact that he's on the cover - no, my problem is that they do make him look like a damn rock star; they don't make him look like a terrible person, they make him look like someone who SHOULD be idolized. It's not the people who love terrible people, you're right. It's the media, and that's all that matters, because that's all we see.
    the fact that someone is interviewing a star that garners media attention about whether or not this terrorist is getting too much media attention is only garnering more media attention for the terrorist. This is some hypocritical bull shit vicious cycle and it's just kinda dumb.
    How many of you people actually read the article?
    It would be hypocrisy for me to voice my dislike for the cover and then to go buy the magazine.
    It's on Rolling Stone's website, no purchase necessary. Read it, it'll help you understand the message they're trying to convey.
    The article is not the issue, it's the fact that a terrorist gets on the cover of one of the most famous magazines out there and in such a way that it makes him look like a teen pop star. If they had put a picture of first-responders or the victims but still had the same story, no one would care.
    The same picture was also featured on the front page of The New York Times, one of the most widely read newspapers in the country. Why was that never a problem? The picture was self-taken, and the magazine can't help that he has a face some find good looking. A picture conveys different things to different people. I don't care what he looks like, the fact is he killed people and his good looks aren't gonna make me see him any differently. The article was about him as a person and what may have affected his transformation into a terrorist who would do something so heinous. It wouldn't make sense journalistically speaking to have any other photo.
    I would have preferred if all coverage of the bomber, and of every kid who pulls out a gun in a classroom, was handled differently.
    Not many, I sense. People just saw David Draiman unleashing his ass pain on Twitter and thought it was super cool.
    that bomber should be hung by his nuts an mocked at by the public...
    Rolling Stone magazine is just doing what they do best: Exploiting something to make a buck off it. Whats really sickening is how leftist those hypocrites say they are about things, when actions like this make them just as bad as the people they bitch about. Why give a mad man the final insult by putting him on the cover of Rolling Stone, to further taunt and depress the survivors of his violence? When the guy committed that massacre in Norway, the country chose to ignore him and not give him any attention out of respect for his victims and to deny him the privilege of getting any sort of message out to the public. If rolling stone had any brains, they would've done the same, or if they were committed to writing about it, put the faces of the victims on the cover of its newest edition, not the monster who now has the final insult in this situation.
    "Why? 'Cause he's cute? 'Cause you find him attractive? And somebody who's cute with tousled hair couldn't possibly have committed something like this? People are out of their goddamn minds." Would you say that they are "Disturbed"
    They used the word suspect in this article so wouldn't that mean he's innocent until proven guilty? I haven't followed the whole story so don't know.
    He hasn't been to trial yet, so he is a suspect. And our legal system does presume innocence until you're tried by jury. Most people are assuming his guilt in the media and in the public because of the evidence against him. It's just how people judge such cases, and that's not a problem as long as the legal system does its job.
    Do Re Mi
    "I've read the article and I still feel the same way," he said. "And you know something?! Sometimes it's just crazy. You don't need to know how this guy came to be, who he was. Everybody's their own person, everybody's capable of making their own choices, everybody's cognizant of their own choices. And the minute that you start blaming everything around you for why somebody loses their goddamn mind is the minute that everybody comes up with an excuse to be a maniac." Just as I suspected, the lead singer of Disturbed isn't very smart.
    Way Cool JR.
    @ TheOnlyChance How is it "A glorifying picture"? That's how the dirt bag looks, it's not like RS fixed him up for a photo shoot or anything. If he was homely or below average looking would it be more acceptable for you and others? Funny that my last post saying the same thing was removed. For what reason? It was/is not offensive in any way or form.
    No telling man... They remove harmless stuff all of the time... but my response to you was: Weren't you the same guy who just said "Damn...are people still going on about this crap, give it a rest already for crying out loud!" ??? lol
    Way Cool JR.
    Yeah...I am.
    LMAO... Maybe we just disagree... I just think the cover is too much... but I suppose they could have broke him out of jail and made him glamour shots... that would be much worse
    Rolling Stone blows. Unless you want Diddy updates, and Beiber four star reviews, and strict leftist one-sided journalism bordering propaganda... once in a while they'll have something in there that's relevant to music as an art form, but that's about it. As for comparing this guy's cover to Manson's... that's a stretch. Manson's story is a far more interesting tale of seduction and drugs than a terrorist whose Mommy and Daddy "failed" him and who cowardly decided to set off a bomb in a crowd. No one wanted to be like Manson, because to be like him you needed to be insane. This guy is just an *****. There's plenty of them out there.
    Consumerism is sick anyway. Remember how how quick companies made shirts, stickers, coins....etc...etc after 9/11. A capitalist will sell you the very rope you intend to hang them with.
    To be honest, I don't see the problem with it. They have every right to put him on the cover of their magazine. If they wouldn't have chose such a sweet photo, they would have been attacked for demonizing him, which leads to accidental glorification. Rolling Stone magazine is - as they always have - be a representation of the times, and I believe they are achieving that in this cover. With the publicity, it is a win-win. I heard one news woman upset about it because 'he looks like Van Morrison on the cover!' Showed me how much some people know. But, it could be too much for some people, and it definitely isn't respectful to the victims