Time's Person Of The Year is You, and You, and You, and You...

Essentially,according to this, TIME took the easy way out.

"If you choose an individual, you have to justify how that person affected millions of people," said Richard Stengel, who took over as Time's managing editor earlier this year. "But if you choose millions of people, you don't have to justify it to anyone."

My guess is they considered several options. Any of them were certain to win them a bunch of subscription cancellations if they went with an individual or group such as Kim Jong Il, the Pope, "The troika of President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.", or Ahmadinejad. As a matter of fact, in the article, Mr. Stengel said that Ahm-a-nut-job was their choice for an individual award. He said "it felt a little off" to pick  him.  He probably knew it would also result in a round of cancellations and they are usually a bit hard to recover from these days.  I've subscribed to TIME in the past.  I doubt that would have moved me to unsubscribe, but I guess some folks think it should always go their way.  They probably learned that lesson when they did the "Person of the Century" or was it "Millennium"?  I don't remember.  So much has happened since then.  The cynic in me says they chose everyone in hopes that we would all rush out and buy a copy. 

I suppose, in kind of a left-handed way, TIME is acknowledging that the print media is slowly losing ground to alternative sources.  We are no longer dependent upon TIME for their weekly analysis or to the NYT as the "Newspaper of Record".  We no longer look to the the Network News Anchor as the oracles of current events that they once were.  Instead of the scrutiny of a few hired fact checkers, we now have millions of eyes looking over their shoulders.  Just ask Dan Rather.

So if I were to pick the "Person of the Year", given TIME's usual criterion that it be someone who shaped the events of the year - good or bad, who would I pick?  I honestly don't know.  Ahmadinejad would be a candidate, as well as President Bush.  Even from a non-economical stand point (I have no money to lose, regardless of who I pick), it would be a difficult choice.

I tend to think it's quite presumptuous to pick any one person when so many things are happening outside that one person's sphere.  There are other major events going on in the world.  We don't know what small spark might set off cataclysmic events.  An example would be the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand that essentially set off two world wars.  I'm sure that TIME would never have picked the likes of Gavril Princip whose bullet felled Ferdinand.  Yet that one shot triggered events that no one could have predicted and seriously affected the rest of the century. 

I suppose, in the end, I'd have to say there is no clear winner, but Ahmadinejad probably comes closest.  You may think otherwise.  Feel free to tell me who YOU think should have won. 

After all, the TIME article tagline is:

"Yes, you control the information age.  Welcome to your world."

VW

Comments

[AubreyJ]

It's all YOU, VW!!!
AubreyJ.........

[Jenn]

Personally, I would like to thank all the little people who made this moment possible. Nah, J/K, it was a cop out. They wanted Minnie Abu-bu-hate-da-jew.

[canuckistani]

I think it was a good idea actually. It shows big media finally acknowledging the little guy.

Who would I have liked to have seen on the cover? Al Gore and his environmental crusade.

[mudkitty]

My hubby, mudcat, is refusing the award and says that if they don't take his picture off the cover he's going to sue.

[MOGS]

The human race has been cancelled on account of extreme boredom and navel gazing :)