posted
I guess it ddn't have "time" in the title. Or anywhere in the message text.
My first thought on seeing the issue was "What in the butt-kissing lame-out?" Yes, Time's 2006 person of the year is: You. The stupid thing is the little mirror screen is clearly the youTube navigator.
But then, I couldn't come up with a compelling alternate. Is it just because I've become so out of touch? Why not Mel Gibson or Foley or... you know, someone the majority doesn't like but who nonetheless had a huge impact on events? Like the years Saddam Hussein and Hitler were dubbed man of the year? What about Pelosi? How often is there an arguable woman of the year?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Me? I'm so honored. Of course I couldn't win sexiest man alive, but oh well. I have so many people to thank. First of all God, he gives me the power to be so awesome. Then I would like to thank my family. Of course the academy (I don't know which one). This ranks right up there with almost getting my Eagle badge in boyscouts and the time I got off with a warning when I was speeding. I hope that ... (music starts and the six foot beauty in a dress ushers me off stage)
Posts: 1766 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree, it is very lame indeed, but probably sounded like a splendid idea during the editorial meeting (after a few snifters and a heavy lunch).
Mind you, I for one feel honoured. I shall use my new-found fame, and thus media access, for the betterment of mankind. Look for me on Oprah...
Posts: 892 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:1950 The American Fighting-Man 1956 Hungarian Freedom Fighter 1960 U.S. Scientists 1966 The Generation Twenty-Five and Under 1969 The Middle Americans 1975 American women 1982 The Computer 1988 Endangered Earth 2003 The American Soldier 2006 You
Seems they burn out every five years or so.
Posts: 413 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
"You", meaning "the fact that common people are gaining access to massive-scale media distribution and changing our entertainment culture" is perfectly legitimate.
Of course, the way they're promoting it is lame Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
So let me get this straight... an individual American woman has never been the Time PotY? And in a year when we had the first ever female speaker-elect, they go with "you"? Now I'm really unimpressed to the point of nausea. I mean, I'm not a big Pelosi fan, but come on.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm wondering how "Endangered Earth" could possibly qualify as person of the year. Then again, if corporations can be people in the eyes of the law, I guess planets can, too...
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: So let me get this straight... an individual American woman has never been the Time PotY? And in a year when we had the first ever female speaker-elect, they go with "you"? Now I'm really unimpressed to the point of nausea. I mean, I'm not a big Pelosi fan, but come on.
Since Pelosi didn't actually become Speaker until 2007, I'm not sure why she'd be person of the year in 2006.
Now, if she runs the country into the ground like she seems to wants, you could probably make a strong case for 2007.
Posts: 413 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:"You", meaning "the fact that common people are gaining access to massive-scale media distribution and changing our entertainment culture" is perfectly legitimate.
quote: It's about the cosmic compendium of knowledge Wikipedia and the million-channel people's network YouTube and the online metropolis MySpace. It's about the many wresting power from the few and helping one another for nothing and how that will not only change the world, but also change the way the world changes.
quote: Like the years Saddam Hussein and Hitler were dubbed man of the year?
It has been the unoficial policy of Time Magazine for some time (since 1979) to only list more or less popular people as Person of the Year. Why 1979, becouse that was the year the got a lot of angry letters about Ruhollah Khomeini being Man of the Year.
Posts: 211 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Agreed on Pelosi being person of the year for 2007, depending on how things go. I may or may not start a thread later tonight on her first actions in the "100 Hours" the Dems are touting.
"You" doesn't bother me for the reason Puppy stated. The "You" in question here are the people who are using Myspace and YouTube, Blogger and other sites on the internet to take control of the media really. I consider the access to and flow of information in the world to be one of the greatest inventions of the last century (and the internet to be one the greatest of all time, prase be to Al Gore). So when the people more or less take control of it, and remove traditional power from the giant media conglomerates, I'm perfectly willing to let "You" be the people of the year.
Personally I thought making Rudy Giuliani PotY in 2001 was ridiculous. I wouldn't have even called him the Person of September. Last years "The Good Samaratans" was a cop out. The American Soldier in 2003 seemed like a "Well, we have to get to them eventually, might as well do it now," vote.
It's not like the TIME has some huge reputation of truthfulness and integrity to live up to in their choice for a new person of the year. It's usually just the guy on the front pages of the most papers.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why should he be? He's a loudmouth figurehead. He doesn't even have the real power necessary to pull off any of the things he is touting. It's like making Tony Snow person of the year.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Why should he be? He's a loudmouth figurehead. He doesn't even have the real power necessary to pull off any of the things he is touting. It's like making Tony Snow person of the year.
Richard Stengel, the editor of time, has confirmed that the standard process in personage selection would have left Ahmadinejad at the top, as the visible face of anti-Americanism and anti-Zionism that has come to prominence in the age beyond the Iraq invasion.
He didn't feel right to do it, though, so he copped out and went for the You story. Not the first cop-out, either: they couldn't bring themselves to put Osama on the 2001 edition.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: Agreed, pooka. At least they can probably get away with this only once.
The article suggested that the "great man" view of history was on the wane as well. This may have been a sign that Time is less interested in this aspect of its public role. I think that's a very sensible idea- write about influential people, but there has never been a Person of the Year who wasn't woefully inadequate, or who didn't have serious competition for the title. It's just a lopsided way of looking at things, and I think time is getting that.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: Agreed, pooka. At least they can probably get away with this only once.
The article suggested that the "great man" view of history was on the wane as well. This may have been a sign that Time is less interested in this aspect of its public role. I think that's a very sensible idea- write about influential people, but there has never been a Person of the Year who wasn't woefully inadequate, or who didn't have serious competition for the title. It's just a lopsided way of looking at things, and I think time is getting that.
(*whispers -- I was being facetious. Not doing it well, obviously, but nonetheless. Just so you know.
Now that I've tried to explain the Funny yet again, it has officially died, decomposed, and is now in the process of being incorporated into the organelles of various microscopic bacteria.)
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:The article suggested that the "great man" view of history was on the wane as well.
So why not say "No person of the year this year. Sorry."
It had occured to me they might save Pelosi for next year, but that was my thought on Obama as well. Though I'm sure Pelosi will justify it far more by the end of the year (assuming this year is as boring as last, which is unlikely). Let's face it, we may like the idea of Obama but he'd be a difficult choice to justify.
But if "The Good Samaritans" could be a P ot Y, why can't "Actors in need of a swift ass-kicking" and include everyone who's been in rehab or had to apologize to the public this year? To ignore the overturn of congress seems silly as well. Anyway, I've just always hated Time magazine and I'm groveling in my brief excuse to do so with some reason.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:But if "The Good Samaritans" could be a P ot Y, why can't "Actors in need of a swift ass-kicking" and include everyone who's been in rehab or had to apologize to the public this year? To ignore the overturn of congress seems silly as well.
I don't think they necessarily ignored it. If the biggest "change" in this country was the election, it's worth noting that the most important aspect of the election was that it was driven by "You" -- the grassroots bloggers, the YouTubers, and by extension average voters -- more than ever before.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
-- but my wit runs dry, the funny has left the building. I weep.)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
