“You” are “Person of the Year”

Time magazine has named the 2006 “Person of the Year” — and it turns out it’s you! Time praised the internet and the web-surfing public for creating a networked society that connects people through blogs, web pages, video (e.g., YouTube), and other online media. So I guess this blog and its readers, in their own small way, have contributed to Time’s award. *Collective pat on the back*



powered by performancing firefox

Comments

Well, this was too pc for words, but, at least Time didn't give it to the Texas village idiot for a third time. I tell you, with some of Time's picks, one finds it very easy to understand why Stan Hauerwas was reserved about their picking him as "America's greatest living theologian." I mean, previous Time "Persons of the Year" have included Hitler, Ayatollah Khoumeni, etc. Sheesh!
D.W. Congdon said…
I am right there with you. But honestly, I have to admit, if there was ever a year to go with some cop-out award, it was this year. Who, honestly, warrants a "Person of the Year"? The people I think of are small-timers like Cory Booker (mayor of Newark), which is probably the right way to go. These "Greatest Living..." or "2006 Best..." awards are just silly to begin with. And this was just a particularly awful year.
Tim said…
You've confused Person of the Year with Employee of the Week.

Time's Person of the Year (previously Man of the Year) has never been an award or honor; rather, it is an attempt to encapsulate a year's events in a particular entity, whether this person has affected the world for good or ill. Thus Hitler was it in 1933, and Stalin was it for the second time in 1942.

Other so-called cop-out picks include Women, The American Soldier, and Science.
D.W. Congdon said…
Tim,

Don't blame me. Blame the BBC article:

"Time has been giving its controversial awards since 1927, aiming to identify those who most affect the news."

They call it an "award," so I'll use the word. Granted, it's not meant to be the award for the "best" person, so I should have been more careful about that. But if they were really sticking to their intention, Bush would totally win the day. He's been in the news more this year than just about any year in his presidency, of course for all the wrong reasons.

It just seems like "You" is the one entity they can "award" since there has been no public figure that has left a noteworthy impression on the public this year, other than laughable figures like Angelina Jolie.
berg1115 said…
Worst person of the year ever! Time should have given it to one of those viral video kids like David St. Elsewhere, which if you haven't seen definitely YouTube it, or the grape lady, or the Numa Numa kid, or...well maybe Time did do a good job.
Tim said…
The BBC is not the same as Time. Time makes statements constantly about how Person of the Year is not an award. From the Wikipedia article on POTY:

The title is frequently mistaken as being an honor. Many, including some members of the American media, continue to wrongly perpetuate the idea that the position of "Person of the Year" is a reward or prize, despite the magazine's frequent statements to the contrary. Part of the confusion stems from the fact that many admirable people have been given the title—perhaps the majority. Thus, journalists will frequently describe a new person of the year as having "joined the ranks" of past winners such as Martin Luther King. The fact that people such as Adolf Hitler have been granted the title as well is often less well-known.

There was a massive public backlash in the United States after Time named Ayatollah Khomeini as Man of the Year in 1979, which caused thousands of subscribers to end their subscription. Since then, Time has generally shied away from choosing controversial candidates.
WTM said…
Funny. Time never called me to set up a photo shoot...

I'll have my people try to get in touch of their people...
D.W. Congdon said…
Tim,

I honestly don't care, but thanks for the information. Maybe your frustration is directed more toward Michael, but whatever the case, I find it rather humorous that you are defending Time magazine so vigorously. Do you work for them?
Tim said…
I am merely a fan of accuracy.