If you're upset about Tsarnev then you either didn't read that article or get the point. The photo they used was a real one, it wasn't doctored, the point of wh

If you're upset about Tsarnev then you either didn't read that article or get the point. The photo they used was a real one, it wasn't doctored, the point of which was to ask the question of how this seemingly intelligent, non-extreme, all-American looking boy could become radicalized and become involved in a terror plot. That article was an example of the kind of real journalism that's lacking in this country. Rolling Stone has for years now been a great source for good journalism. It's not just a music magazine and hasn't been for a long time. They've been doing a lot of good investigative reporting for at least the past ten years that I know of and maybe more. You may not like what you read but the fact that it came from Rolling Stone is totally irrelevant. You want sources? Read the article. They're in there. You want citations? Read an academic journal. What magazine or newspaper that you know of puts citations for every little thing in their articles? None. Because they're not publishing academic papers. If no source is valid without the citations you require then no magazine is a valid source by your logic - logic that's flawed.