Time's Person of the Year

[gymtime]

This was debated a little last night on PI. Just thought I would see what the Elite folks thought.

Criteria for Time Magazine's Person of the Year according to Jim Kelley, Time's managing editor:

"Well, the classic definition of TIME's Person of the Year is the person who most affected the events of the year, for better or for worse. I think what has happened over the years is that the Man of the Year title, Person of the Year title, has become non-honorific. It was never meant to be solely that." - exerpt from Time's website, click here for the link.

Was Mr. Guliani, great as he is, the person who most affected the events of 2001? I say no. There's only one obvious choice IMO. What do you think?

 

[danielson]

OBL

i cant think of anyone who has affected world events more than him...hell he's even changing the way we live

 

[musclebrains]

It's called marketing. Personally, I'd rather the magazine compromise its principles than have to watch The League for Stem Cell Protection and Denial of Special Rights to Homsexuals organize a boycott against Time magazine that will be the sujbect of 10, 000 hours of debate on CBN.

 

[danielson]

It's called marketing. Personally, I'd rather the magazine compromise its principles than have to watch The League for Stem Cell Protection and Denial of Special Rights to Homsexuals organize a boycott against Time magazine that will be the sujbect of 10, 000 hours of debate on CBN.

why would they (specifically) if OBL got it?!? ive neverheard of those 2 organisations

anyhow, he never would get it purely because most of their readers probably wouldnt buy the magazine and you;d get some saying that the magazine should be boycotted like you said.

still, it doesnt change the fact that they were perhaps being less than objective in their choice this year. whethere this particularly matters or not depends on how you view the media

 

[gymtime]

why would they (specifically) if OBL got it?!? ive neverheard of those 2 organisations

anyhow, he never would get it purely because most of their readers probably wouldnt buy the magazine and you;d get some saying that the magazine should be boycotted like you said.

still, it doesnt change the fact that they were perhaps being less than objective in their choice this year. whethere this particularly matters or not depends on how you view the media

If money was the issue this time around, 'twas not always the case. The article says that Hitler got it in 1938 to a neutral response. The Khomeini selection resulted in only a few hundred subscription cancellations. So it seems that there was a time when the magazine actually did have some balls.

 

[musclebrains]

Um, I was engaging in a bit of hyperbolic fiction to make the point that the far right would go batty and boycott Time.

 

[musclebrains]

If money was the issue this time around, 'twas not always the case. The article says that Hitler got it in 1938 to a neutral response. The Khomeini selection resulted in only a few hundred subscription cancellations. So it seems that there was a time when the magazine actually did have some balls.

Yep, but dem was the days before Time-Warner-AOL and the media had principles a little less driven by entertainment/PR/money values.

 

[danielson]

If money was the issue this time around, 'twas not always the case. The article says that Hitler got it in 1938 to a neutral response. The Khomeini selection resulted in only a few hundred subscription cancellations. So it seems that there was a time when the magazine actually did have some balls.

hmm

maybe those were different times. there wasnt an attack on mainland america at that time....i thought musclebrains might have actually beeen joking as the names he made for those organistaions seemed so incredulous but what he said is true....the farright would have a field da.

it might have been a corporate fear...i was just reading an article today on how businesses have been quick to display patriotic messages in NYC (plus their own logo of course)....perhaps businesses fear the first organistaion to go against the trend will face a huge backlash as a result

maybe the government influenced them....who knows? an article on OBL would be certain to show his past employers

 

[gymtime]

Um, I was engaging in a bit of hyperbolic fiction to make the point that the far right would go batty and boycott Time.

OK, but the far-right has always been around, regardless of principles (or lack thereof) of Time magazine. Why didn't they boycott over the Khomeini cover?

 

[musclebrains]

OK, but the far-right has always been around, regardless of principles (or lack thereof) of Time magazine. Why didn't they boycott over the Khomeini cover?

Well, I don't think the far-right had the kind of power then that it does now or in the 50s. Moreover, they didn't have as much access to media.

 

[gymtime]

Well, I don't think the far-right had the kind of power then that it does now or in the 50s. Moreover, they didn't have as much access to media.

I think the magazine surely would have taken a beating, but not as bad as many think, especially since Bin Laden was such an obvious choice according to their own criteria. I think a lot of people actually expected it and were surprised to see Guliani on the cover. I know I was.

 

[musclebrains]

Honestly, i wasn't the least bit surprised. Media have very little integrity these days. My editor sends back my work all the time with notes like, "Have you thought about how angry this is going to make some of your (he means "our") readers?" Sometimes they even change the headlines to comment negatively on the contents, as if that's gong to make what I write more palatable to the Stem Cell Rescue Squad.

 

[Test boy]

Um, I was engaging in a bit of hyperbolic fiction to make the point that the far right would go batty and boycott Time.

Maybe...while the far left secretly applauds the actions of OBL since it furthered the cause of the destruction of our society.

 

[musclebrains]

Maybe...while the far left secretly applauds the actions of OBL since it furthered the cause of the destruction of our society.

I am going to assume that's irony too. I read three newspapers most days and I have yet to find anyone appaluding the actions of OBL. I guess that's why you said it's done "secretly"?

 

[gymtime]

He probably means prisoners and mental patients, neither of whom get a great deal of press.

 

[musclebrains]

He probably means prisoners and mental patients, neither of whom get a great deal of press.

Oh he's calling the lunatic fringe "the far left."

Speaking of the lunatic fringe, I saw "Mulholland Drive" tonight. The lead actress looks like smalls. Moreover, she sucks another woman's face.

 

[smallmovesal]

ooh post a pic!

 

[musclebrains]

You haven't seen the movie? The character who looks like you even plays a Canadian.

 

[smallmovesal]

i've heard of it but never seen it.

 

[smallmovesal]

this one?

 

[musclebrains]

mmhmmm

 

[smallmovesal]

thanks!