this -- they showed -- , you know, the cover, the picture of dzhokhar tsarvaev. it was a really good article talking about the history of this kid essentially. it's a photograph that the "new york times" used. why is it different that the "rolling stone" used it? and why does it feel different? >> i think because we in our society, our culture, asubscribe rolling stone cover to the definition of what is hip. and that's part of why it was shocking. i think it has a brand identity crisis. it does the most serious kind of reporting on all sorts of issues, the drug war, wall street now terrorism, and packages those stories next to stories about bands, so in a sense there is a confusion around its brand. it is also the public's perception as "rolling stone" as a 1960s magazine about bands when in fact it has matured. but there is a cognitive distance. >> michael: there is, that's a great way to put it. we have seen presidents and a killer, we have seen charles manson on that cover. on time magazine we saw the columbine killers. why is this different? >> look at my twi