A segment of last night’s “O’Reilly Factor” repeated many of yesterday’s ridiculous arguments about Rolling Stone magazine’s attempts to “glamorize” alleged Boston marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.

In chatting with O’Reilly, Republican strategist Kate Obenshain said that articles like Rolling Stone’s reflect “the tendency of the mainstream media to have some degree, frankly, of sympathy with terrorists to blame America for our ills.”

She also delivered some retroactive advice to the magazine:

“Rolling Stone” itself said that the article is heart-breaking and riveting. And I was really struck by that because I think the truly heart-breaking riveting stories that would sell “Rolling Stone” magazines but would also be sympathetic to the people of Boston would be that of little Richard Martin, the 8-year-old who was killed and his family. The little sister lost a leg.

In a letter to Rolling Stone publisher Jann Wenner, Boston Mayor Thomas Menino yesterday struck pretty much the same theme, noting that the magazine could have focused on “the brave and strong survivors and on the thousands of people — their family and friends, volunteers, first responders, doctors, nurses, and donors — who have come to their side.”

Indeed Rolling Stone could have gone in that direction, and such stories of bravery and valor are indeed compelling. Yet that’s not to say that media outlets shouldn’t be chasing details on the biographies of the alleged bombers, too. They should, and the Erik Wemple Blog is happy that the editors of Rolling Stone — not Kate Obenshain and Thomas Menino — make the editorial decisions at Rolling Stone.