Time Magazine's 'Person' of the Year

[aerocontrols]

The announcement is scheduled for tomorrow, but someone at their website has made an error tonight.

http://i.timeinc.net/time/personoftheyear/2003/images/cover_thumb.jpg


Well done, Time

[Iconoclast]

Who is it? I can't read that small.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Iconoclast
Who is it? I can't read that small.

It's some Army guys that found the coward. I'm proud of them, don't get me wrong, but I'd probably have given you names and a longer post had they been Marines.:D

[Iconoclast]

Originally posted by Troll
It's some Army guys that found the coward. I'm proud of them, don't get me wrong, but I'd probably have given you names and a longer post had they been Marines.:D
I guess you're talking about the guys that captured Saddam Hussein, I don't see how they could be considered the most influential people of the year.

[a_unique_person]

The American Soldier


They swept across Iraq and conquered it in 21 days. They stand guard on streets pot-holed with skepticism and rancor. They caught Saddam Hussein. They are the face of America, its might and good will, in a region unused to democracy. The U.S. G.I. is TIME's Person of the Year



Now if that isn't one of the most f*cked up pieces of polemic, I don't know what is. "They are the face of America". I think that there are plenty of Americans who would be wondering how they got sucked up into all this bullsh!t.

[Shane Costello]

One of them's Irish.

:ire:

[shuize]

I don't suppose any of them are Australian? No. I didn't think so.

[BTox]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Now if that isn't one of the most f*cked up pieces of polemic, I don't know what is. "They are the face of America". I think that there are plenty of Americans who would be wondering how they got sucked up into all this bullsh!t.

:v: As usual, the majority of Americans disagree.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by BTox


:v: As usual, the majority of Americans disagree.

refer to this thread http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=32651

[Iconoclast]

Originally posted by shuize
I don't suppose any of them are Australian? No. I didn't think so.
I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean. Were you attempting an insult?

[TruthSeeker]

I must agree with Iconoclast. The TIME Person of the Year is supposed to be the person who has had the most influence (good or bad) on the world situation in the previous year. Soldiers pretty much just do what they are told. That doesn't sound very influential to me. Even if they did an extraordinarily good job, they were still just following the orders of the people who really do have influence.

I haven't been to the Time site yet to see if they list other candidates, but I would have thought the following were more influential in 2003:

Saddam Hussein
George W. Bush
The SARS Patients 0

Others? I haven't had coffee yet...

[BTox]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


refer to this thread http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=32651

And what was the point to linking to that other anti-American propaganda thread? Other that you are consistently anti-American?

[Iconoclast]

Originally posted by TruthSeeker
I haven't been to the Time site yet to see if they list other candidates, but I would have thought the following were more influential in 2003:

Saddam Hussein
George W. Bush
The SARS Patients 0

Others? I haven't had coffee yet...
I've been trying to think of someone more deserving that the GIs, but I must confess I haven't come up with anything yet. I can't think of anyone who did something really big this year.

[American]

TIME is obsolete.

[TruthSeeker]

Originally posted by Iconoclast

I've been trying to think of someone more deserving that the GIs, but I must confess I haven't come up with anything yet. I can't think of anyone who did something really big this year.


I had trouble too. Remember, it can also be a machine or technology (computers won one year) or a group of people.

[BTox]

Originally posted by American
TIME is obsolete.

Yes, it really has become a rag.

[Iconoclast]

Originally posted by TruthSeeker
I haven't been to the Time site yet to see if they list other candidates, but I would have thought the following were more influential in 2003:
The others were:

Arnold Schwarzenegger
Vladimir Putin
Kim Jong Il

[Iconoclast]

Originally posted by TruthSeeker
I had trouble too. Remember, it can also be a machine or technology (computers won one year) or a group of people.
I can't believe Schwarzenegger made the short list, he hasn't done anything yet, and he can only affect California. I guess nothing really happened this year.

I almost ran over a possum in my car, but I swerved at the last minute and avoided almost certain catastrophe. Perhaps I should win.

[TruthSeeker]

Originally posted by Iconoclast

The others were:

Arnold Schwarzenegger
Vladimir Putin
Kim Jong Il


Schwarzenegger? How has he influenced the world? Maybe the US (a bit and possibly more in the future) but the world?

Putin...that's sort of interesting but again not a huge impact. Maybe France...their opposition to the war in Iraq created interesting ripples.

Kim Jong Il...again, I don't see his impact this year. Perhaps in the next few years...

The latest Harry Potter book had a bigger impact than some of these folks...

[Iconoclast]

Originally posted by TruthSeeker
Kim Jong Il...again, I don't see his impact this year. Perhaps in the next few years...
Yeah, he did a lot of posturing, but nothing came of it. I guess at the moment he's the most likely guy to start World War III, apart from Bush of course.

[TruthSeeker]

Originally posted by Iconoclast

Yeah, he did a lot of posturing, but nothing came of it. I guess at the moment he's the most likely guy to start World War III, apart from Bush of course.

Exactly my point! Thanks for expressing it clearly for me.

I really must get some coffee.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by American
TIME is obsolete.

Beat me to it.

The whole "Man of the Year" ceased to be about anything but marketing about twenty years ago, when any talk of journalistic ethics and standards was finally drowned out by "look at all this *&%@ing money."

This "Soldiers as Person of the Year" bit should be seen for what it really is: a masterpiece of cynical marketing. This isn't a large corporation deciding to pay tribute to our "brave men and women in uniform;" it's an editorial staff figuring out how to pander to it's readers. This one is a complete masterpiece, because anyone fooloish enough to say they think it is a bunch of feel-good maudlin crap can be safely branded as some sort of traitor to the American Serviceman, like those scum that spit on our brave boys just back from 'Nam. You know, those hippie scum that hate America and have posters of Saddam over their beds...

Makes crticisms of editiorial positions quite dodgy. You have to bend over backwards and say you appreciate the American Soldier and that s/he is just aces, does a great job, and clearly was motivated to join out of pure patriotism and not a desire to get the heck out of Palestine, West Virginia (to pick a place at complete random, of course) and go to college or at least Charlotte...

Of course, once you say all that it gets kind of hard to disagree with the cover. I'm sure the Soldiers would rather have all the money Time is making by pimping their image than the generalized accolades, but then again I'm a terrible cynic.


Then there's the whole draft thing but I'll maybe start a new thread with that one.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by American
TIME is obsolete.

"Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so." --Douglas Adams

[Tmy]

But the last Army press release said Jessica Lynch caught Saddam!;)

[KelvinG]

Remember when the person of the year used to be the most "newsworthy" person, not the most popular.
Time showed its true colours when it chose Rudy Guliani over Osama Bin Laden a couple years back.
It's about feel good journalism, as opposed to being about reality.

[Garrette]

Suddenly:

This one is a complete masterpiece, because anyone fooloish enough to say they think it is a bunch of feel-good maudlin crap can be safely branded as some sort of traitor to the American Serviceman, like those scum that spit on our brave boys just back from 'Nam. You know, those hippie scum that hate America and have posters of Saddam over their beds...

Makes crticisms of editiorial positions quite dodgy. You have to bend over backwards and say you appreciate the American Soldier and that s/he is just aces, does a great job, and clearly was motivated to join out of pure patriotism and not a desire to get the heck out of Palestine, West Virginia (to pick a place at complete random, of course) and go to college or at least Charlotte...


Is the opposite true? If one were to agree with TIME's choice, is that person labeled as simply a marketer, a panderer, or some other shallow figure?

Truth Seeker:

Soldiers pretty much just do what they are told.

No. Soldiers are given missions. There are instances in which specific actions and only those actions are directed, but a soldier not only does but also is required to demonstrate initiative and independent thought.

If you do not think that the 3ID soldiers who first rolled into Baghdad did not exercise independent judgment and decision-making when they began fixing up schools and hospitals and making contacts with local leaders and establishing neighborhood councils, or if you think that the young Specialist in my own Brigade who, on her own, established the Baghdad Women's Business Forum to help women learn the ins and outs of small business was just pretty much doing what she was told, then you are mistaken.

In my own particular function, I have an amazing amount of leeway, and this on a national stage.

[TruthSeeker]

Originally posted by Garrette


Is the opposite true? If one were to agree with TIME's choice, is that person labeled as simply a marketer, a panderer, or some other shallow figure?



No. Soldiers are given missions. There are instances in which specific actions and only those actions are directed, but a soldier not only does but also is required to demonstrate initiative and independent thought.

If you do not think that the 3ID soldiers who first rolled into Baghdad did not exercise independent judgment and decision-making when they began fixing up schools and hospitals and making contacts with local leaders and establishing neighborhood councils, or if you think that the young Specialist in my own Brigade who, on her own, established the Baghdad Women's Business Forum to help women learn the ins and outs of small business was just pretty much doing what she was told, then you are mistaken.

In my own particular function, I have an amazing amount of leeway, and this on a national stage.


I apologize if I seemed to minimize the work of the armed forces. That was not my intention. What I meant to say (and I will not post before coffee again) is that the soldiers, as a whole, are not the most influential person(s) of the year. They are not responsible for initiating the war or for the changes in the world (for good or bad) which have resulted or will result because of operations in Iraq. That responsibility and ownership (for good or bad) is given to the president and a very few higher ups.

Generally, perhaps with the exception of Giuliani, influence at the local level is not enough to be "person of the year". As posted above, Giuliani was a terrible choice. He had no real impact on world events whereas Bin Laden triggered a deep-rooted change which impacted internationally.

Again, I hope you will not take offense.

[Garrette]

No offense taken, but thanks for the clarification.

I suppose the only answer lies in what criteria TIME itself puts forth for the designation.

[Hypocolius]

Originally posted by TruthSeeker

I apologize .....

Again, I hope you will not take offense.

Sorry about this Truthseeker, but this made me laugh this morning!

On topic, however, Time's decision to use GIs on its cover is marketing, plain and simple, as was its decision not to use Bin Laden (who would buy a picture of Bin Laden in the US?). It's about as meaningful as all the news outlets in the UK covering the Christmas No. 1, ie not at all.

It would be interesting to see who people do think made the most positive contribution to the world (not just the US) this year, maybe I'll start a new thread.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Garrette


Is the opposite true? If one were to agree with TIME's choice, is that person labeled as simply a marketer, a panderer, or some other shallow figure?


I'm trying to figure out how one can be a marketer or panderer without being involved in the decision. After reflection, I think I grasp the gist of what you are saying. I think. I mean, you can condone or support behaviour without taking part in it or its converse. That's the whole point of my post, that one could look darkly upon the selection without doing likewise to those selected. I'm sure there are people that aren't greedy pimps that agree with the selection. Doesn't really address the reasons for the selection though.

Then again, you may be asking whether those that agree feel like others imply those attributes to them. That would be closer to the contra-position of what I was trying to say...

I don't know, are they? Do people when they say "gee that's a good idea" feel the need to preface that with a "I deplore the use of the images and fighting men purely for profit?" I really haven't caught that vibe, but I don't get out much.

The central thing that needs to be realized is that "Time" is doing nothing "noble" or "patriotic" by pasting soldiers on the cover. They are part of a profit seeking entity, one that is bound by law to run their business in the best financial interests of the stockholders. They put on the cover what they think would sell.

Nothing weird here, just business as usual in our world where we allow such entities to exist under our laws. If public opinion were solidly against the war then I'd expect a cover of maybe Saddam with a caption along the lines of "Will our imperialist government ever stop killing for oil" or some such nonsense.

Like Puffy said, It's all about the Benjamins.

Not that theres anything wrong with that, but I'd think the world would be a more ordered place if we realized that big corporations are enitites that would kill your family for a buck if they believed it in the best interests of the stockholders. They say they follow all laws, but I doubt that's more than another cont-benefit determination. I get that nice reminder every morning when the overweight coal trucks come flying by. When they started enforcing the weight limits, the local firms started complaining that they relied on the non-enforcement to the point that they now only own trucks that are cost-effective if over the weight limit.

Not really directly connected to journalism and ethics, but if we can't count on big business to not try to kill us for a buck I'm not going to put much else past that. I always wonder about killing for profit when one of those suckers loses control going down a mountain and makes a rather nasty road pizza out of a family of five. Even though the company knows it is illegal, knows that statistically it will kill someone, somewhere that otherwise would live, somehow this isn't a premeditated intentional killing. Yet if a 18 year old breaks into a house and someone inside dies from the fright he can go down on murder one.

But I digress...

[TruthSeeker]

Originally posted by Hypocolius


Sorry about this Truthseeker, but this made me laugh this morning!




Oh...were you laughing in a mocking way? Did I sound like a dingbat? Caffeine withdrawal does that to me .

Regardless, I'm glad you enjoyed my ramblings.

:D

[NullPointerException]

My only concern is that with a category of individuals as person of the year candidates the most obvious choice is people... How about garbage men, doctors, or *gasp* lawyers in America as the people of the year?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Troll


It's some Army guys that found the coward. I'm proud of them, don't get me wrong, but I'd probably have given you names and a longer post had they been Marines.:D

From what I heard, while the Army guys were capturing Saddam, the Marines were hiding in their tents. :p

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by TruthSeeker
I must agree with Iconoclast. The TIME Person of the Year is supposed to be the person who has had the most influence (good or bad) on the world situation in the previous year.
From Snopes - Man of the Year (http://www.snopes.com/rumors/manyear.htm):
Every year since 1927, Time magazine has presented a Man of the Year -- someone it has designated as the person who has most influenced events in the preceding year. Strictly speaking, Time does not limit the designation to a man, a single individual, or even a person: over the years they have also recognized women (Elizabeth II), couples (Generalissimo and Madame Chiang Kai-Shek), groups (U.S. Scientists), teams (Apollo 8 astronauts), non-specific group representatives (Hungarian Freedom Fighter), and machines (The Computer).

Public confusion and dismay has often followed some of Time's choices because of a misunderstanding of the nature of the "Man of the Year" designation. Although it is often assigned to people who have achieved significant political, military, or scientific accomplishments we would consider an overall benefit to mankind, the designation is not technically an "honor" or an "award," nor is it something bestowed as praise for good works. It is (and always has been), in Time's own words, a recognition of "the single person who, for better or worse, has most influenced events in the preceding year."

It is an inescapable fact of life that the bad, the evil, and the notorious often have a great deal influence on world affairs, and Time's annual "Man of the Year" selection is simply an acknowledgement of the person they perceive to have been that year's most influential individual, whatever the nature of that influence. Some of Time's previous "Man of the Year" selections such as Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Ayatullah Khomeini (or even Mrs. Wallis Warfield Simpson) were not intended to heap laudatory praise upon those persons, but to simply recognize their profound effect upon world history.

I agree, TruthSeeker. I dont find the US soldiers very influencial. "We do what we're told and dont ask any questions" mentality isnt much influencial in my opinion. A better choice would have been Saddam Hussein.

[Troll]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer


From what I heard, while the Army guys were capturing Saddam, the Marines were hiding in their tents. :p

What's a tent? Is that one of those green tarp things people that stay in the rear sleep in? Just remember, all branches (except the Air Force) do more than most others by 9am ( or whatever time that old commercial used) but the Marines do a little more with way less:p

[T'ai Chi]

How can the person of the year be many men and women?

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
How can the person of the year be many men and women?

Well, once they have been assimilated into the collective........