Time Magazine has announced George W Bush as its Man of the Year. For sticking to his guns (literally and figuratively), for reshaping the rules of politics to fit his ten-gallon-hat leadership style and for persuading a majority of voters that he deserved to be in the White House for another four years.
I feel sick to my stomach. Why do we continue to hold this man up in the face of all the mistakes and all the preventable deaths, and all the hatred that is snwballing for Americans everywhere?
WRITE TIME and tell them how disgusted you are by their selection! (letters@time.com)
You (and the others who filled Time's inbox) are over-reacting. The Time Man of the Year isn't about the being the best person or most important person of the year in a positive way. It's just simply the person who had the most news-worthy impact in a given year.
Stalin won twice.
Hitler won once.
Kruschev won during the Cold War.
Nixon won.
In their description of Bush, there's nowhere that Time places him on a pedestal. They say he has stuck to his guns. Right or wrong, he has. They say his leadership is ten-gallon-hat style. Good or bad, it is. They're not making judgements, they're making statements.
And admit it, it is in fact quite a feat that a bonehead such as this could convince half of the nation that he is worth keeping around.
Though I KNOW that Matt is right, I FEEL this is a tacit approval. The half the nation that doesn't think he's a bonehead will feel it, too.
I'm reading Jefferson right now. He makes it very clear that he would not approve of talk about leaving the country because of political frustration. He thought it was every citizen's obligation to stay and struggle for our beliefs. Of course, he also would have thought that an insurrection was an appropriate response.
"It's just simply the person who had the most news-worthy impact in a given year."
In that case, wouldnt that be grounds enough for the US President (easily the most powerful position in the world right now) to be "Person of the Year" every year.
Maybe other criteria should be used to determine quality "news-worthy" leadership from bone-headed "news-worthy" stubborn ten-gallon leadersahip...
"In that case, wouldnt that be grounds enough for the US President (easily the most powerful position in the world right now) to be "Person of the Year" every year."
I think the point is that while the US President (and other world leaders) have the *power* to make an impact each year, not every leader actually does take action and make an impact.
I don't think it's fair to suggest that because half of the nation (and undoubtedly a higher percentage of the world opinion) disapprove of his politics that Bush had less of an impact on world events this year than other leaders/key figures. Yuschenko, Allawi, Karzai, Sharon, and other leaders undoubtedly recieved alot of consideration for this award. I'm guessing al Zarqawi and bin Laden have been considered, as well. Not because they're great leaders or important title-holders, but because they have shown that they have great ability to create news.
If you start to qualify what it means to be "newsworthy," then you change the entire character of the Time Man of the Year award. News is (supposedly) impartial, so awards for newsworthiness should represent the same ideals.
i know some people are going to think of my rant as immature bullshit, but sometimes it helps to be undiplomatic and see things in black and white.
Mmatt, i think that you are trying to say that Bush is the correct choice by the STANDARD OF JUDGEMENT OF TIME MAGAZINE. Which seems right.
But instead of just supporting their judgement after that, cant you think of questioning the standard of judgement???
what makes an impact on the mind of the people all over the world (i am saying people who, like me are not from america) is that here is a reputable and very famous magazine like Time, which to many people represents america itself, proclaiming W as the man of the year.
And i do not beleive that a 'man of the year' goes for a person who is newsworthy. It stands for a whole lot more than that.
I wish i had a copy of time handy to wipe my shit off too.
TIME just trying to stir up some interest in its magazine... the color scheme is already red... wonder how many new subscribers it has picked up so far
Stark, I'm glad to see we're all capable of mature, informed responses on this board. Kudos.
"And i do not beleive that a 'man of the year' goes for a person who is newsworthy. It stands for a whole lot more than that."
sameolddoctor, let me explain it to you this way: if you want an award for "Greatest Guy in the World Gold Medal" or something along those lines, by all means, start a foundation, elect a board, and have them choose the World's Greatest Guy and award him a medal. Choose your own standard of judgement. But the fact is, in "black and white" as you put it, is that Time Magazine bases their selection on who has had the biggest impact on the news in a given year. Good or bad.
The Man of the Year award is worth preserving in its current state. No other award is based on similar methodology. No other award is focused on pinpointing an individual/group/object (keep in mind the "25 year olds and Under" was given the award once, as was "Peacekeepers" and "The Computer") which singularly had the most impact on news in a given year. There's no other news outlet with a reputable award such as this which could step up and fill the void. And there has been no injustice to warrant making a major change in the way this award is decided.
It's a critical decision. Same you would make if you renovate a building. Is this old facade worth preserving? Does it have more value than what you're proposing to replace it worth? Should this award be kepts as is? Or is there more cultural value in instead naming a yearly "sameolddoctor's World's Greatest Guy Gold Medal?"
It's also worth mentioning that the Time Magazine decision cannot/should not be considered the opinion of the majority of US citizens. It's the decision that was made on November 2nd, election day, which should be making the major "impact on people all over the world" (as you put it), not the decision of a corporate entity. The people of the United States made a choice to keep this guy in the White House. THAT is what should illicit a knee-jerk angry reaction, not the choice of what you've termed "a rag."
And I suppose it's also worth mentioning that I didn't vote for Bush. Either time. And that I hold his administration personally accountable for every death of a US serviceman in Iraq, a war which was started on unreliable evidence and poor decision making. And I am personally extremely frustrated that a little over half of the people in my home country DON'T think that Bush is a baffoon. So it's not my politics speaking out to defend Time Magazine, it's my critical judgement.
...Bush getting the time man of the year award shouldn't be getting everyones panties in such a big knot, should it? I mean , my god, Yasser Arafat winning the nobel peace prize was a much bigger afront to worldwide common sense than a two-bit U.S. 'picture' rags pick for a yearly non-meaningful award.....
being confronted with a romanticized faux-painted cover imge of W with the slogan "person of the year" over it ... and reading a magazine are different things.
Confronted?
There is alot more serious things in this world that can and do confront us daily. If this is you worst, you have a very good life, I'm jealous.
now now, dont get smart-alekky. you (gustav) really shouldnt be presumptuous about someone else's life. and there are things that i do about the things that confront me daily. but this isnt about me, stay on the subject.
what i am saying, is that it is surprising after all he has put the world through this year to celebrate the guy with a glamour cover shot and a glory slogan like 'person of the year'. and yes 'confronted,' the way that one is confronted by the cover of cosmo and stuff and details. these things mark our cultural history. in the end what will be rememberd about it is that he graced the cover and got the award, not what was said about him in there.
Lola, heaven forbid George Bush "graces" the same cover that was also graced by Kruschev, Stalin (twice), and Adolf Hitler.
This isn't a glamour title. It isn't a pedestal or a feather in anyone's cap. It doesn't mean Time (or anyone else) thinks that he's doing a good job. It just means that he had the single biggest influence on major news this year.
hey hey lola........ and everyone chatting about this subject......
Time weren't the idiots.... the americans were for re-electing him.. go blame them....
lol
let's clarify his title. it is "person of the year" not "man of the year." and yes, gringodms, if half of the country hadn't voted for him, he would not be on the cover.
according to MMatt, it is whoever "has had the biggest impact on the news in a given year" ... therefore it should be a flexible title not always "Person of the Year".
This year, i would propose it should be "Instigator of the Year" or "Divider of the Year"
Incidentally, his nemesis, Osama, should have recieived the same accolade in 2001.
I was flipping through an old Newsweek in a thrift store a while ago (I think someone saved it because it had the Nixon/ Kennedy debates in it) and was most struck by the around of text it had in it vs. glossy images. The captions in those days were as long as the articles now. Also striking was the level of back ground knowledge and sophistication the reader was assumed to have.
If you want vaguely right-wing drivel read Time. If you want vaguely right-of-center drivel read Newsweek. Otherwise, there’s always The Nation or The Economist or New Republic. Shit, I’ve read tastier news items in Punk Planet than the MacDonalds and Burger King of news magazines dish out.
I’ve been a lot less angry since I gave up and accepted my true identity as a liberal elitist.
Guliani won in 2001. And after about 4 seconds of research, I found this quote from TIME editor Jim Kelly on an old CNN article explaining exactly why Osama bin Laden didn't win in 2001.
* * *
"Though we spent hours debating the pros and cons of naming Osama bin Laden, it ultimately became easy to dismiss him," said managing editor Jim Kelly. "He is not a larger-than-life figure with broad historical sweep ... he is smaller than life, a garden-variety terrorist whose evil plan succeeded beyond his highest hopes."
* * *
And on a side not, the definition of the award that I've been giving is not the gospel according to Matt, but it IS the officially stated standard of the magazine. Here's a snippet from the end of the Reuters article from yesterday (what can I say, it's a slow day at work).
* * *
" Kelly said he and his staff debated giving the award to others including Karl Rove, the president's influential political adviser, and filmmakers Michael Moore and Mel Gibson.
The winner must be "the person or persons who most affected the news and our lives, for good or for ill, and embodied what was important about the year, for better or for worse," he said. "
mmatt, i appreciate the dialgue, but i have to say i disagree with you. while, i agree that one should be unbiased in the decision of "person/thing of the year" as you stated, i dont think that time is being unbiased in this.
for example, according to their description of the criteria for determining a figure worthy of the title as "who most affected the news and our lives, for good or for ill" alone means that osama should have been selected in 2001. guiliani was just a re-action to an al qaeda action.
plus lets put this is context. to dismiss osama, they wrote that osama's "evil plan succeeded beyond his highest hopes" ... we could almost use that same description for W ... so clearly there is bias.
i, like you, am just trying to understand the criteria by which this figure representing the year is selected.
and i have a big problem with the selection this year:
because it is the president. and awarding it to the president of the USA is like awarding "best roar in the jungle" to the lion. He will get it every year, becuase of the nature of the power at his disposal. for me that is not a measure of what impact one can have. Michael had more impact with less means and more balls.
because it is like awarding it to the load mouth bully in the school just because they had an impact school-wide.
anyway. i would have given it to all the political 501s or whatever for encouraging high voter turnout or to the Red Cross in all their work after the US has bombed a place ... lots more to choose from than just big powerful W.
lifeform says "for example, according to their description of the criteria for determining a figure worthy of the title as "who most affected the news and our lives, for good or for ill" alone means that osama should have been selected in 2001. guiliani was just a re-action to an al qaeda action."
LF, I don't think I can argue with you on that one. Certainly the premise of this award is that it should be an unbiased appraisal of the influence an individual had on the news, but in practice, that ideal wasn't upheld in 2001. Considering the political climate then (and now), I'm quite convinced that a couple of suits sitting around a conference table made the executive decision that bin Laden was far too controversial, and the wounds he opened were far to fresh, to choose him as Person of the Year. Did he deserve it, considering the parameters they set forth? Most likely. Sure.
As far as this year goes, however, I challenge you to suggest another alternative to George W Bush. Someone who fits their proclaimed parameters. I don't think this year's selection is the result of bias. The middle eastern conflict is possibly the biggest polarizing issue in the world, with effects stretching across the entire Islamic world and throughout the US' sphere of influence. It's certainly the biggest news piece amongst Time's readers. And who has had more effect on that conflict than Bush? Possibly the Secretary of State or (more likely than not) the Vice President from behind the scenes, but Bush has been the face of the US side of this conflict... and as detrimental as that is to diplomacy and the worldwide opinion of the US, it puts him at the forefront of the biggest news piece of the year. And that alone should qualify him by Time's standards.
While I enjoy your lion's roar analogy, I can't help but think that, at the end of the day, Time fully intends this to be a roaring contest. Their in the business of rebroadcasting the loudest and most reverberating roars, so it is their intention to celebrate the biggest/loudest lion in the jungle (or bully in the school).
I think the idea of an "efficiency factor" for impact is pretty fascinating. The most bang for the buck, if you will. I'd like to see such an award celebrated, but what sort of media outlet would be interested in it? Suggestions?
I'm betting on Ahnold for next year. After the recall/election in CA, his beginner's pluck as gov, his appearance at the RNC this year, next year we'll start to hear more and more buzz about changing the US Constitution for him. All we need is a good scandal from him and he's a shoo-in.
MMatt, i will take up your challenge for a more suitable candidate ...
my vote::
Persons of the Year: THE IRAQI PEOPLE
[img=http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2003/05/01/3falluja.jpg[/img]
+ they have fought back against the US (against all odds).
+ they have fought alongside the US against insurgents (against their own people).
+ they have put up with this mess firsthand (in their streets with their blood).
+ they have endured total loss for obscure and unverified rationale.
and most of all, without them, W would be NOTHING.
+ he cant even utter a sentence without saying "iraqi people" in that texas drawl of his.
since Americans don't really understand Iraqis as a culture and since the media has not done a very good job of doing anything more than making them seem one-dimensional and undeserving of sympathy/empathy, I'd bet not very many Americans would find this pick to be very interesting. Magazine sales wouldn't be as good as they will with good ol' Georgie. AOL Time-Warner wouldn't be happy. You gotta have a good cover.
(I swear GWB looks like someone else in that portrait, but I can't figure it out. A thin WC Fields? The cartoon portrayal of Jimmy Durante in the 1969 Frosty the Snowman? What IS it?)
mmatt
though i appreciate your dialogue, i by no means meant to say that
YOU VOTED FOR W, and that was totally out of context. Maybe you are taking this a bit personally, just for the sake of argument.
What i am saying that Time could change their method of proclaiming their method of selecting the 'man of the year'. And i dont think many of our generation are going to see bush in the same league as hitler or stalin, because they are just not aware that they were also featured on the same covers.
and yes, time is not seen as the voice of america, but it surely is one ot the important publications that come out of america and is circulated all over the world. Fuck all that, in the end Time comes out of AOL-Time Warner which is a huge conservative group of companies anyways.
and yes, let me point out that somewhere in January, AOL had this bullshit poll on their website, asking if W could be nominated for the nobel peace prize too. so no wonder time comes in that league too
Though I fully disagree with his political views, I would argue that Carl Rove should be "Person of the Year" if national political influence were to be the basis of judgement. He's an evil genius that cleverly manipulated the fears of many, many Americans. Without Rove, GWB would have lost by a landslide. Despite what we may think of his "mission accomplished" GI-Joe posings (and other stunts), Rove knew that enough American's would fall for it. And he was right. Approximately 52% of voting Americans did fall for it.
GWB should be puppet of the year. Rove, Rumsfeld, and Cheney are pulling the strings.
it seems like The Person of the Year used to be a little more global back in the day:
1981- Lech Walesa
1985- Deng Xiaoping (twice)
1986- Corazon Aquino
1989- Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev (twice)
1993- Nelson Mandela, F.W. de Klerk, Yasser Arafat, and Yitzhak Rabin
1994- Pope John Paul II
1996- David Ho
1996 was the last non-American ... lately it has been very American-centric and corporate:
1997- Andy Grove
1998- Bill Clinton (twice) and Kenneth Starr
1999- Jeffrey P. Bezos
2000- George W. Bush
2001- Rudolph Giuliani
2002- The whistleblowers
2003- The American Soldier
2004- George W. Bush
Destroy Time
Time Magazine has announced George W Bush as its Man of the Year. For sticking to his guns (literally and figuratively), for reshaping the rules of politics to fit his ten-gallon-hat leadership style and for persuading a majority of voters that he deserved to be in the White House for another four years.
I feel sick to my stomach. Why do we continue to hold this man up in the face of all the mistakes and all the preventable deaths, and all the hatred that is snwballing for Americans everywhere?
WRITE TIME and tell them how disgusted you are by their selection! (letters@time.com)
yeah, it seems their mailbox is full. my email just bounced back.
You (and the others who filled Time's inbox) are over-reacting. The Time Man of the Year isn't about the being the best person or most important person of the year in a positive way. It's just simply the person who had the most news-worthy impact in a given year.
Stalin won twice.
Hitler won once.
Kruschev won during the Cold War.
Nixon won.
In their description of Bush, there's nowhere that Time places him on a pedestal. They say he has stuck to his guns. Right or wrong, he has. They say his leadership is ten-gallon-hat style. Good or bad, it is. They're not making judgements, they're making statements.
And admit it, it is in fact quite a feat that a bonehead such as this could convince half of the nation that he is worth keeping around.
.mm
Though I KNOW that Matt is right, I FEEL this is a tacit approval. The half the nation that doesn't think he's a bonehead will feel it, too.
I'm reading Jefferson right now. He makes it very clear that he would not approve of talk about leaving the country because of political frustration. He thought it was every citizen's obligation to stay and struggle for our beliefs. Of course, he also would have thought that an insurrection was an appropriate response.
Like it or not, what you hold in your heart is what you see in the world.
Change it and the world changes.
Things that make you go hmmmm....
"It's just simply the person who had the most news-worthy impact in a given year."
In that case, wouldnt that be grounds enough for the US President (easily the most powerful position in the world right now) to be "Person of the Year" every year.
Maybe other criteria should be used to determine quality "news-worthy" leadership from bone-headed "news-worthy" stubborn ten-gallon leadersahip...
dont buy time magazine
"In that case, wouldnt that be grounds enough for the US President (easily the most powerful position in the world right now) to be "Person of the Year" every year."
I think the point is that while the US President (and other world leaders) have the *power* to make an impact each year, not every leader actually does take action and make an impact.
I don't think it's fair to suggest that because half of the nation (and undoubtedly a higher percentage of the world opinion) disapprove of his politics that Bush had less of an impact on world events this year than other leaders/key figures. Yuschenko, Allawi, Karzai, Sharon, and other leaders undoubtedly recieved alot of consideration for this award. I'm guessing al Zarqawi and bin Laden have been considered, as well. Not because they're great leaders or important title-holders, but because they have shown that they have great ability to create news.
If you start to qualify what it means to be "newsworthy," then you change the entire character of the Time Man of the Year award. News is (supposedly) impartial, so awards for newsworthiness should represent the same ideals.
.mm
I just took a Nasty Shit and wiped up with my TIME Rag.
Man of the year fuck you TIME.
i know some people are going to think of my rant as immature bullshit, but sometimes it helps to be undiplomatic and see things in black and white.
Mmatt, i think that you are trying to say that Bush is the correct choice by the STANDARD OF JUDGEMENT OF TIME MAGAZINE. Which seems right.
But instead of just supporting their judgement after that, cant you think of questioning the standard of judgement???
what makes an impact on the mind of the people all over the world (i am saying people who, like me are not from america) is that here is a reputable and very famous magazine like Time, which to many people represents america itself, proclaiming W as the man of the year.
And i do not beleive that a 'man of the year' goes for a person who is newsworthy. It stands for a whole lot more than that.
I wish i had a copy of time handy to wipe my shit off too.
TIME just trying to stir up some interest in its magazine... the color scheme is already red... wonder how many new subscribers it has picked up so far
Stark, I'm glad to see we're all capable of mature, informed responses on this board. Kudos.
"And i do not beleive that a 'man of the year' goes for a person who is newsworthy. It stands for a whole lot more than that."
sameolddoctor, let me explain it to you this way: if you want an award for "Greatest Guy in the World Gold Medal" or something along those lines, by all means, start a foundation, elect a board, and have them choose the World's Greatest Guy and award him a medal. Choose your own standard of judgement. But the fact is, in "black and white" as you put it, is that Time Magazine bases their selection on who has had the biggest impact on the news in a given year. Good or bad.
The Man of the Year award is worth preserving in its current state. No other award is based on similar methodology. No other award is focused on pinpointing an individual/group/object (keep in mind the "25 year olds and Under" was given the award once, as was "Peacekeepers" and "The Computer") which singularly had the most impact on news in a given year. There's no other news outlet with a reputable award such as this which could step up and fill the void. And there has been no injustice to warrant making a major change in the way this award is decided.
It's a critical decision. Same you would make if you renovate a building. Is this old facade worth preserving? Does it have more value than what you're proposing to replace it worth? Should this award be kepts as is? Or is there more cultural value in instead naming a yearly "sameolddoctor's World's Greatest Guy Gold Medal?"
It's also worth mentioning that the Time Magazine decision cannot/should not be considered the opinion of the majority of US citizens. It's the decision that was made on November 2nd, election day, which should be making the major "impact on people all over the world" (as you put it), not the decision of a corporate entity. The people of the United States made a choice to keep this guy in the White House. THAT is what should illicit a knee-jerk angry reaction, not the choice of what you've termed "a rag."
And I suppose it's also worth mentioning that I didn't vote for Bush. Either time. And that I hold his administration personally accountable for every death of a US serviceman in Iraq, a war which was started on unreliable evidence and poor decision making. And I am personally extremely frustrated that a little over half of the people in my home country DON'T think that Bush is a baffoon. So it's not my politics speaking out to defend Time Magazine, it's my critical judgement.
...Bush getting the time man of the year award shouldn't be getting everyones panties in such a big knot, should it? I mean , my god, Yasser Arafat winning the nobel peace prize was a much bigger afront to worldwide common sense than a two-bit U.S. 'picture' rags pick for a yearly non-meaningful award.....
well o+ let's not forget about shimin peres also...
I'm surprised you people even read time, what's up with that.
being confronted with a romanticized faux-painted cover imge of W with the slogan "person of the year" over it ... and reading a magazine are different things.
Confronted?
There is alot more serious things in this world that can and do confront us daily. If this is you worst, you have a very good life, I'm jealous.
now now, dont get smart-alekky. you (gustav) really shouldnt be presumptuous about someone else's life. and there are things that i do about the things that confront me daily. but this isnt about me, stay on the subject.
what i am saying, is that it is surprising after all he has put the world through this year to celebrate the guy with a glamour cover shot and a glory slogan like 'person of the year'. and yes 'confronted,' the way that one is confronted by the cover of cosmo and stuff and details. these things mark our cultural history. in the end what will be rememberd about it is that he graced the cover and got the award, not what was said about him in there.
Lola, heaven forbid George Bush "graces" the same cover that was also graced by Kruschev, Stalin (twice), and Adolf Hitler.
This isn't a glamour title. It isn't a pedestal or a feather in anyone's cap. It doesn't mean Time (or anyone else) thinks that he's doing a good job. It just means that he had the single biggest influence on major news this year.
.mm
hey hey lola........ and everyone chatting about this subject......
Time weren't the idiots.... the americans were for re-electing him.. go blame them....
lol
let's clarify his title. it is "person of the year" not "man of the year." and yes, gringodms, if half of the country hadn't voted for him, he would not be on the cover.
according to MMatt, it is whoever "has had the biggest impact on the news in a given year" ... therefore it should be a flexible title not always "Person of the Year".
This year, i would propose it should be "Instigator of the Year" or "Divider of the Year"
Incidentally, his nemesis, Osama, should have recieived the same accolade in 2001.
INSTIGATOR OF THE YEAR
who/what won it in 2001?
I was flipping through an old Newsweek in a thrift store a while ago (I think someone saved it because it had the Nixon/ Kennedy debates in it) and was most struck by the around of text it had in it vs. glossy images. The captions in those days were as long as the articles now. Also striking was the level of back ground knowledge and sophistication the reader was assumed to have.
If you want vaguely right-wing drivel read Time. If you want vaguely right-of-center drivel read Newsweek. Otherwise, there’s always The Nation or The Economist or New Republic. Shit, I’ve read tastier news items in Punk Planet than the MacDonalds and Burger King of news magazines dish out.
I’ve been a lot less angry since I gave up and accepted my true identity as a liberal elitist.
Guliani won in 2001. And after about 4 seconds of research, I found this quote from TIME editor Jim Kelly on an old CNN article explaining exactly why Osama bin Laden didn't win in 2001.
* * *
"Though we spent hours debating the pros and cons of naming Osama bin Laden, it ultimately became easy to dismiss him," said managing editor Jim Kelly. "He is not a larger-than-life figure with broad historical sweep ... he is smaller than life, a garden-variety terrorist whose evil plan succeeded beyond his highest hopes."
* * *
And on a side not, the definition of the award that I've been giving is not the gospel according to Matt, but it IS the officially stated standard of the magazine. Here's a snippet from the end of the Reuters article from yesterday (what can I say, it's a slow day at work).
* * *
" Kelly said he and his staff debated giving the award to others including Karl Rove, the president's influential political adviser, and filmmakers Michael Moore and Mel Gibson.
The winner must be "the person or persons who most affected the news and our lives, for good or for ill, and embodied what was important about the year, for better or for worse," he said. "
.mm
lola,
all those "foreheads" are brought "together" to form your cultural matrix at your nearest magazine rack.
mmatt, i appreciate the dialgue, but i have to say i disagree with you. while, i agree that one should be unbiased in the decision of "person/thing of the year" as you stated, i dont think that time is being unbiased in this.
for example, according to their description of the criteria for determining a figure worthy of the title as "who most affected the news and our lives, for good or for ill" alone means that osama should have been selected in 2001. guiliani was just a re-action to an al qaeda action.
plus lets put this is context. to dismiss osama, they wrote that osama's "evil plan succeeded beyond his highest hopes" ... we could almost use that same description for W ... so clearly there is bias.
i, like you, am just trying to understand the criteria by which this figure representing the year is selected.
and i have a big problem with the selection this year:
because it is the president. and awarding it to the president of the USA is like awarding "best roar in the jungle" to the lion. He will get it every year, becuase of the nature of the power at his disposal. for me that is not a measure of what impact one can have. Michael had more impact with less means and more balls.
because it is like awarding it to the load mouth bully in the school just because they had an impact school-wide.
anyway. i would have given it to all the political 501s or whatever for encouraging high voter turnout or to the Red Cross in all their work after the US has bombed a place ... lots more to choose from than just big powerful W.
(When I wrote Michael, i meant Michael Moore) sorry.
lifeform says "for example, according to their description of the criteria for determining a figure worthy of the title as "who most affected the news and our lives, for good or for ill" alone means that osama should have been selected in 2001. guiliani was just a re-action to an al qaeda action."
LF, I don't think I can argue with you on that one. Certainly the premise of this award is that it should be an unbiased appraisal of the influence an individual had on the news, but in practice, that ideal wasn't upheld in 2001. Considering the political climate then (and now), I'm quite convinced that a couple of suits sitting around a conference table made the executive decision that bin Laden was far too controversial, and the wounds he opened were far to fresh, to choose him as Person of the Year. Did he deserve it, considering the parameters they set forth? Most likely. Sure.
As far as this year goes, however, I challenge you to suggest another alternative to George W Bush. Someone who fits their proclaimed parameters. I don't think this year's selection is the result of bias. The middle eastern conflict is possibly the biggest polarizing issue in the world, with effects stretching across the entire Islamic world and throughout the US' sphere of influence. It's certainly the biggest news piece amongst Time's readers. And who has had more effect on that conflict than Bush? Possibly the Secretary of State or (more likely than not) the Vice President from behind the scenes, but Bush has been the face of the US side of this conflict... and as detrimental as that is to diplomacy and the worldwide opinion of the US, it puts him at the forefront of the biggest news piece of the year. And that alone should qualify him by Time's standards.
While I enjoy your lion's roar analogy, I can't help but think that, at the end of the day, Time fully intends this to be a roaring contest. Their in the business of rebroadcasting the loudest and most reverberating roars, so it is their intention to celebrate the biggest/loudest lion in the jungle (or bully in the school).
I think the idea of an "efficiency factor" for impact is pretty fascinating. The most bang for the buck, if you will. I'd like to see such an award celebrated, but what sort of media outlet would be interested in it? Suggestions?
I'm betting on Ahnold for next year. After the recall/election in CA, his beginner's pluck as gov, his appearance at the RNC this year, next year we'll start to hear more and more buzz about changing the US Constitution for him. All we need is a good scandal from him and he's a shoo-in.
MMatt, i will take up your challenge for a more suitable candidate ...
my vote::
Persons of the Year: THE IRAQI PEOPLE
[img=http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2003/05/01/3falluja.jpg[/img]
+ they have fought back against the US (against all odds).
+ they have fought alongside the US against insurgents (against their own people).
+ they have put up with this mess firsthand (in their streets with their blood).
+ they have endured total loss for obscure and unverified rationale.
and most of all, without them, W would be NOTHING.
+ he cant even utter a sentence without saying "iraqi people" in that texas drawl of his.
Mason's probably right, BUT...
since Americans don't really understand Iraqis as a culture and since the media has not done a very good job of doing anything more than making them seem one-dimensional and undeserving of sympathy/empathy, I'd bet not very many Americans would find this pick to be very interesting. Magazine sales wouldn't be as good as they will with good ol' Georgie. AOL Time-Warner wouldn't be happy. You gotta have a good cover.
(I swear GWB looks like someone else in that portrait, but I can't figure it out. A thin WC Fields? The cartoon portrayal of Jimmy Durante in the 1969 Frosty the Snowman? What IS it?)
It looks like time got what it wanted. Look at the feathers that have been ruffled here.
...which i think it was lifeform's point was about it being a completely biased decision.
consiering george bush has a current approval rating of 48% and 49% disapproval ... the ruffled to unruffled ratio is a tad high.
i second mason's choice.
mmatt
though i appreciate your dialogue, i by no means meant to say that
YOU VOTED FOR W, and that was totally out of context. Maybe you are taking this a bit personally, just for the sake of argument.
What i am saying that Time could change their method of proclaiming their method of selecting the 'man of the year'. And i dont think many of our generation are going to see bush in the same league as hitler or stalin, because they are just not aware that they were also featured on the same covers.
and yes, time is not seen as the voice of america, but it surely is one ot the important publications that come out of america and is circulated all over the world. Fuck all that, in the end Time comes out of AOL-Time Warner which is a huge conservative group of companies anyways.
and yes, let me point out that somewhere in January, AOL had this bullshit poll on their website, asking if W could be nominated for the nobel peace prize too. so no wonder time comes in that league too
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1035353.htm
Thanks, sameolddoctor. Hitler's on that list, too! and Milosevic!
Though I fully disagree with his political views, I would argue that Carl Rove should be "Person of the Year" if national political influence were to be the basis of judgement. He's an evil genius that cleverly manipulated the fears of many, many Americans. Without Rove, GWB would have lost by a landslide. Despite what we may think of his "mission accomplished" GI-Joe posings (and other stunts), Rove knew that enough American's would fall for it. And he was right. Approximately 52% of voting Americans did fall for it.
GWB should be puppet of the year. Rove, Rumsfeld, and Cheney are pulling the strings.
FYI, GWB also won in 2000.
it seems like The Person of the Year used to be a little more global back in the day:
1981- Lech Walesa
1985- Deng Xiaoping (twice)
1986- Corazon Aquino
1989- Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev (twice)
1993- Nelson Mandela, F.W. de Klerk, Yasser Arafat, and Yitzhak Rabin
1994- Pope John Paul II
1996- David Ho
1996 was the last non-American ... lately it has been very American-centric and corporate:
1997- Andy Grove
1998- Bill Clinton (twice) and Kenneth Starr
1999- Jeffrey P. Bezos
2000- George W. Bush
2001- Rudolph Giuliani
2002- The whistleblowers
2003- The American Soldier
2004- George W. Bush
we sure do love ourselves lately.
i agree, i think THE IRAQI PEOPLE deserved it more.
i agree with mason 2.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.