TIME Magazine Used To Have Balls - "You" are not the "Person of the Year"

And so we are left with Albert Einstein, a great man, but a footnote in history alongside giants like Hitler, Stalin, Gorbachev, and perhaps even Oppenheimer.

Woa, hold it Killfile. You just lost all perspective right there. Too much emphasis on politics, too little regard for science. The theories of relativity triggered a paradigm change, the nukes have not accomplished anything like that yet.

Of course the entire population of the world has a profound influence over the day to day lives of the average person; there are, after all, some 6 Billion people out there.

It's not about 6 billion people, not yet, but it just might have. It's about "the people" or "the consumers", mainly online, as indicated by the photo. It's about Digg, Youtube, Myspace, yea, and Newsvine. In that perspective, and considering the multitudes of headlines triggered by "you", Time has a point, and one above and beyond the trivial. If "we", that is "you" and I fail to see that, it is just too ironical. If I was on the board of the Person of the Year Committee, I would laugh my ass of over that.

News is about elitism, it's about outliers, and it's about the individuals who do extraordinary things;

Says who? 600.000 nameless civilians, none of them part of the global elite, and not such an outlier considering the state of the world and the number of casualties of all kinds of disasters, natural or man made... still news... How anyone can believe that ordinary people don't matter, and be in news broadcasting, beats me. Even more strangely, how can "you" be on Newsvine and fail to acknowledge the relevance of the enormous collective effort.

You are good, Killfile, but I am not with you on this one...

When I read Time's Person of the Year article I thought it was a joke at first... But then I read this:

"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," said Grossman, Time's technology writer and book critic.

The idea of the many wresting power from the few is a powerful one. Too bad it's not true. Or at least not in some quantifiable sense. Did "we" have an affect on this years election? I like to think so, but nothing on the scale of "wresting power from the powerful." One day "we" might wield such power, but I don't think that time is here yet.....

......and how that will not only change the world, but also change the way the world changes," said Grossman.

So the Person of the Year is awarded based on an educated guess about what the future will bring? If that's part of the criteria, lets give it to Obama as the futures first black president...

I like GoReporter's take on the story:

Wow!

Who'd a thunk it? Me. Time Person of the Year! Awe, shucks. Thank you, thank you....I'd like to thank my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, my Mom and Dad, and....

There is more and I am being pretty selective here, but still. Leave it to a conservative perspective to think mostly of themselves.

While it may seem like a cop-out at first, I think there is something to the concept. Sure, the way TIME went about it was stupid (YOU, yes, ALL of you). They could have simply done an extensive issue on the information age and new media, and actually chosen a single, important person for PotY.

I really do feel that the concept is an important one, though. Media is changing, and faster than anyone really believes. In the last few years, internet television and news have become HUGE, and huge amounts of the information being sent and recieved is user-made. It IS a shift from huge groups and companies controlling print and media, over to what used to be the consumer. And while it might be a little early to make the proclamations that it sounds like they're planning on making (whoo sentence structure), it is an important happening and deserves attention.

How many times have I urged you to look in the mirror? I told you to look there for the problem, for answers and for the solution. Now Time has told you. Maybe you will believe me. The Internet has become an effective tool, blogs do work, You can make a difference.

KF, you're the @!$%# as always. I wanted to write something like this, but hey, my flight leaves in a few hours.

TANKS GOD FOR KILLFILE (indian accent)

You're so right, man. I was watching Al-Jazeera International, and when I saw that, I was baffled. Sure, it's great that "YOU", as in "ME" and others taking advantage of the internet to propel us more and more into the information age is a great thing...

but seriously so much @!$%# went on in 2006! And I feel that you along I are the only people who remembers it all!

Aftermath of Hamas winning "free elections', new Conflict in Lebanon, Darfur, Ahmadinejad, N Korea blowing up a mini nuke, Mid-term elections, rumsfeld resigning after so many years, civil war in iraq, saddam getting death penalty etc etc. So much stuff happened, and it is as if they are completely disregarding it all.

I applaud your article. When I write about something that pissed me off, there's just too much cussing for the crowd, but you know how to write for the general audience, so thank you for that.

Damn, Killfile, isn't TIME's pick the biggest example of ad populum fallacy ever? When you say "cop-out", it's almost an understatement to me! :P

My own feelings about TIME is heavily colored by the fact that it was founded by Bonesman Henry Luce at a time when fellow graduates of Yale's class of 1917, including one Harriman brother, Prescott Bush and others used it as an obvious tool to promote the individuals and policies that were profitable for their private investments. As such it has some level of self serving, Wall Street pandering regardless of the era and individual selected. In my view it is a bit of an acknowledgement of the simple fact that they-big media aren't king of the hill and gatekeepers of knowledge in the information age. TIME's overall "news" coverage isn't hard hitting or honest enough to tackle a real person of the year or issues around it without backlash from those who read between the lines to see what was twisted or omitted. The CJ world is the nemesis which is better for TIME to honor than challenge.

The CJ world is the nemesis which is better for TIME to honor than challenge.

And You, Pamela Drew, are part of that nemesis, You. Also, you and you and you.......Killfile, You are one of the leaders, don't give up. Zaki, You have just spent six months showing others how You really can count, keep doing it.

I suppose in that case 'macaca' is the word of the year. Which actually almost makes sense: Allen getting busted with his patronizing racist attitude did tip the balance of power in the world's most powerful government.

I want to hate Time for pandering to the masses; doing so, however, upsets my liberal arts-educated individualist perspective. I'm quite simply caught in a bind.

Mostly, though, I think 2006 was too tumultuous a year to have 'You' be the person of the year. How about Nasrallah? or George W Bush? The Middle East was the main story of the year, in my opinion.

If I was really going to be a downer I would say the people of Darfur were the people of the year.

Until this war is over, I think the American Armed Forces should continue to be our 'People of the Year'.

People have a tendency to think that person of the year means a good person, it is understandable that Time has difficulty choosing an evil person to be plastered all over the country on magazine covers. Perhaps they felt we all needed some positive news.

Personally, I thought Al Gore was going to get it - I'm glad he didn't.

You do realize, Killfile, that the person of the year he is referring to, besides me, is all the people who are changing the world as we know it - via the World Wide Web. Not everyone is part of that - only a select few of what I refer to as 'movers and shakers'. :-)

In 2001 I thought the Man of the Year should have been President Bush - for his swift response to 9/11. IF Time would have been on the ball, they'd have named Bin Laden in 2000.

If I was going to pick the Person of the Year, besides the Amerian Armed Forces, or me, I would have picked Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad; just for shock value. But so many people, including Iranians, do not take him seriously, which is why I think Time did not choose him.

In addition, I believe Time is generally considered to be an American magazine - so I wonder if their choice has more to do with how the 'person' affects American life, as opposed to the world. I realize Time is read all over the world, but I believe it's considered an American magazine for the most part.

Go ahead and give yourself a pat on the back - you might deserve it.

"You" are not the "Person of the Year"

The hell I'm not! I voted Democratic this year!

We live in a world with A problems. I am tired of this we are the world,
we are the children stuff. Great column on Time's cop out. But, I believe
that it is much worse. I do not try and fix my electrical problems at home
because I would get electrocuted-I choose to hire a professional.

I want analysis by professionals. I am not copping out, but the democratization
of media is a huge responsibility.

In 2006, person of year? How about our little friend from North Korea? How about
the President of Iran? Does anyone read what this guy writes? How about Donald
Rumsfeld? The man did not listen to US Military professionals, and history may say
that we fought the wrong enemy! Sorry for the rant, but Time did blow it and refeshing to
see someone take them to task!

Eric Cartman for person of the year

Does this mean I should delete the new line I added to my resume this morning: Time Magazine Man of the Year?

I gotta take issue with this. I find the term "balls" sexist and your perspective that only "heroes" make history misguided. As someone who sang the International in my youth and read Germinal as a handbook, I'm partial to anything that puts "We the People" in their rightful place as the ultimate makers of history. Here are some of the transformational technologies that I haven't seen mentioned above:

1) Podcasts that allow us to select what we want to hear when we want to hear it, without commercial interruption (although the golden age may be passing.) Check out the Best of the Left show that knits together the best from Air America and other sources.
2) Free, open source software that allows us to set up a web server to place original content on the Internet. This includes Apache as well as blogs and wikis.
3) Software that allows voters to talk peer-to-peer with other voters to remind each other about the importance of voting.
4) Software that allows 2000 house parties viewing An Inconvenient Truth to participate in in a video conference call and to post questions in real time. (This happened over the weekend: Check out AlGore.com)

Democracy is going through a transformation that may allow it to finally live up to its promise. The 2006 election demonstrated that we can overcome corporate funded, one-way electoral campaigns. The main stream media has perfected the 30-second sound bite at the same time that a significant portion of the electorate has moved on to use the Internet to listen to each other. It runs counter to reason to not give the process the recognition it deserves.

Whether I deserve it or not, it is going on my resume.

On TWIT #80 (released today) John C. Dvorak delivers an excellent diatribe against this decision by Time magazine. He is also thoughtfully countered by Steve Gibson (i think) regarding how You might in fact be the person of the year (similar to Claus' thoughts in comment #2). This segment is right in the beginning of the netcast and is worth a listen if for nothing other than to hear Dvorak be a crank.

Killfile, if I may offer some editorial advice:

Unquestionably, these individuals had a profound impact upon the events that surrounded them during these years.

Certainly Osama Bin Laden was the figure most responsible for the events that day. Certainly that would make him, unquestionably, the single most important figure in the events of 2001.

Einstein's contributions to physics were profound and his roll as an icon of American science is unquestionable -- but his influence is not nearly what Time assumed it to be.

...would dominate the latter half of the 20th Century, and unquestionably changed European History dramatically and irrevocably with his extermination of millions of Jews and other "undesirables."

Unquestionably, I have never seen a more overused adverb in an article.:)

A good habit to get into doing in your rewrite is to purge your article of adverbs. This is a tool that Stephen King writes about in his book "On Writing." For example, how would the meaning change if you eliminated all adverbs from the following paragraph:

Yet certainly those attacks were the defining news story of 2001. Certainly Osama Bin Laden was the figure most responsible for the events that day. Certainly that would make him, unquestionably, the single most important figure in the events of 2001. If Adolph Hitler could be named in 1938 for his creation of a racist, fascist, and expansionist regime in Europe certainly Bin Laden's comparatively smaller deed - though perhaps with equally far reaching consequences - qualified for similar recognition in 2001.

It would read as follows:

Yet those attacks were the defining news story of 2001. Osama Bin Laden was the figure most responsible for the events that day. That would make him the single most important figure in the events of 2001. If Adolph Hitler could be named in 1938 for his creation of a racist, fascist, and expansionist regime in Europe, Bin Laden's smaller deed - though perhaps with equally far reaching consequences - qualified for similar recognition in 2001.

King attributes this purge to Strunk and White's Rule 13: Omit needless words. He says, while he tries to get rid of all adverbs, there are still a few he leaves in his writing.

My two cents.

Einstein, a footnote in history!! I don't think Time Magazine is the one being delusional here. Time's person of the year is as subjective as any other award or recognition and whereas you are free to disagree there is no right or wrong in who they choose to give the honour to.

The one area where TIME Magazine is infallible is in coming late to the party. If you see a trend written up in TIME, you can be sure that it was over just last week. So now that TIME has written up the networked world (aka YOU), I guess we can safely start looking around to see what the next big thing is.