I could have told you who was going to be Time’s Person of the Year. If you’d asked me I simply would have asked you back, because you are the Big Brain and you know. Was that prescient of us? Nah, it’s been obvious all year!
Hat tip - Ma Ding, who pointed out the obvious to me.
Ken (I feel small) Carroll
Time did a good thing
I’m torn as to whether I think they’ve had a great idea, or whether I think they’re copping out because there weren’t many great people this year (anyone else notice that?).
As usual, I’m a cynic who suspects everything.
Good thing is, now I can put it on my resume:
Awards and Achievements:
2006 Time Magazine Person of the Year
I wonder if anyone would buy it…
This makes sense. In 1982, it was the computer. Last year Bill Gates shared the honor with his wife and Bono.
I don’t know if I should be humbled and proud or worry. However, I still like Will’s idea of adding it to my resume.
If “Time” announced that it was dark out at midnight — I’d get up and double check.
I gotta agree with FDW here. Given the global events of the last year, their choice seems pretty spineless. They should have given it to “our obsequious, pliant media”.
I don’t really see their choice as spineless. They always take the safe route - Bono and Bill Gates, for example. If anything, this was risky for them - this award has become a predictable and institutionalized over the years. I think the problem is that they didn’t really get across why the Big Brain deserves the prize this year.
Ken Carroll
Perhaps I was in a cynical mood. But I can think of a litany of deserving candiates, and it seems like a needlessly uplifting choice in a year of global strife.
GTK - Really? Who are they?
I’m in a permanent cynical mood. I don’t think Time will ever outlive naming Hitler as Person of the Year in 1938 (was it ‘38?).
I frankly wonder why anyone cares what Time has to say. Perhaps a youthful error?! That’s the beauty of getting older… you stop caring what people who don’t care about you think.
I tend to agree with most of the others here, it was a spineless choice.
I’m not sure what Time’s criteria is for selecting “Person of the Year”. However, it seems to me that this award should recognize a unique person based on famous or infamous contributions made. Giving recognition to the “whole world” is not very clever or original.
I guess there is an element of pandering going on with Time telling the little man that he too can now write stuff and be heard.
I’m wondering why FDW doesn’t trust Time. Is it their political bias? Are they too left-wing, or too right wing?
Ken Carroll
Ken …
The political slant of “Time” (per se) is immaterial to me. But, they have their hand heavily into internet media (via Time-Warner) and have repeatedly used their magazine in a self-serving manner to indirectly lobby legislation favorable to their pocketbook — the latest being implicit support for trashing net-neutrality. We’re still suffering in many ways due to the myopic Telecommunications Act passed in the 90’s. During that period, “Time” whipped up the “Internet Porn” hysteria to such a sensationalistic degree that it was really the only aspect of the act that was discussed publically … leaving the really odious provisions to sail through without debate. A cynic would conclude that this was exactly what “Time” was intended, since they stood to benefit so much financially (and did).
Oy.
1) Let’s not hold Time’s selection of Hitler…or Stalin…against them. The general idea was not supposed to be ‘Most Wonderful and Likeable Person of the Year’, but rather ‘The Person who had the most Influence on the Year.’ In that sense, Hitler was a very sensible choice for 1938.
2) That being said, I’m going to have to differ with the original post. Time became complete spineless in their choices long before any of us here were born. At some point, they decided ‘Person of the Year’ could be translated into ‘Broad Category of Millions/Billions of People of the Year.’ So ‘the American soldier’ could win, or ‘Hungarian Freedom Fighters.’
The problem is that, when we accept that, no individual ever has a snowball’s chance in hell of winning. A ‘Person of the Year’ is relevant only insofar as their actions have an effect on a lot of people. Stalin, for example, was meaningless as an individual; it was the Soviet people he represented at the time that counted for something. So if we put those tens of millions of Russians up for nomination next to everyone’s favorite Man of Steel (ehhh…not Superman), he can’t hope to win.
So yeah. ‘You’ is a really wimpy choice, though the point they’re making with it is a very valid one.
Ah, I had a different idea of what a ‘person of the year’ was. I’ve always though it was an influential person but only in a positive sense, so that you don’t give a person of the year award to someone who tomorrow decides to, well, invade Poland, for example. So, it’s not a method of recognition of good work, but rather a simple, plain statement of influence. Not nearly as interesting. Perhaps I won’t put it on my resume.
Yeah, putting down an award you share with Hitler and Stalin probably won’t look as good on a resume as you think. Heh.
Also, this has probably been posted on ChinesePod before, but Time had a series of articles awhile back you all might be interested in reading.
http://www.time.com/time/asia/.....story.html