A commenter at MetaFilter.com said:
"I really wish I could be someone who didn't care about this, but instead I'm just really pissed off. Person of the Year isn't the Special fucking Olympics. The entire point of the exercise is that everyone doesn't get a medal for participating. The purpose of the issue is to address the person or persons who, for bad or worse, most affected world events of that year. So they picked... everyone? Well of course everyone affected world events the most, fuckwits."
"2001 was the year that Time blatantly copped out on the entire point of the issue and they've never recovered. Osama bin Laden was clearly the person who, like Hitler in 1933, affected world events the most that year. But they gave it to Giuliani because bin Laden wouldn't sell magazines and readers would be too stupid to realize it's not an award."
My vote for 2006 Person of the Year would be Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad because he appears to be involved in multiple large scale "projects" and because he won the battle for media attention over Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and North Korean leader Kim Jong-il.
About Time's decision, Check out George Will's comments on ABC’s This Week. Will squirms and looks more constipated than usual as he can't wait to respond to what another person is saying. From the show:
STENGEL: It’s not just about blogging, it’s about YouTube, it’s about MySpace. I mean, look at how, you go back to –
WILL: It’s about narcissism, which is why a mirror is absolutely perfect. So much of what is done on the web is people getting on there and writing their diaries as though everyone ought to care about everyone’s inner turmoils. I mean it’s extraordinary.
Ha! A mirror. That's pretty witty for a columnist who feels the cold hand of irrelevance on his shoulder. It seems Will's comments could also be applied to what Will does. And naturally, Will oversimplifies the blogosphere, implying that it's all about people commenting on their troubled relationships, their jobs, and their pets.
George Will makes me think of the January 2006 Toledo Free Press interview with WSPD host/program director Brian Wilson. (Toledo Talk posting) :
TFP: Did you follow the local Web blog comments about WSPD after Frantz was removed, on such sites as ToledoTalk.com?
Wilson: I haven't seen it, but every town has a blog, and they are generally populated by Kool-Aid drinkers, mouth-breathers, has-beens, never-will-be people and so on. It's a game that means nothing. It's generally a hobby for someone to masturbate their ego anonymously. I've been in this business 40 years. They're listeners. They have no clue how this business works.
Wilson + Will = bloggers AND columnists and talk show hosts masturbating their thoughts in front of a mirror. Insulting one group denigrates the others because it's still about expressing opinions. The methods or the technology used to express these opinions are different. That's all. But because of the Web, it's much easier today for the public to speak out.
And maybe what really frightens the Will and Wilson types is the Web's ease of use for public expression that nearly eliminates the need for columnists and talk show hosts.
It's easier to express an opinion and have a conversation on a free blog or message board than to send a letter to the editor of a newspaper or to the station manager of a TV station or to call a radio show. Archiving and searching old Web postings are advantages of the Web over those other methods of expression.
The question for the Will and Wilson types is what makes "their" newspaper or TV or radio better than the public's use of the Web? I assume Will and Wilson's lamestream media doesn't control all expressions of thought.
And the thing is, many columnists, reporters, and talk show hosts -- the so-called pros -- also maintain active blogs today. For some in the media, it's not one form versus the other. All forms are accepted and used: print, Web, audio, video. And some media companies accept contributions from the public via the Web.
posted by jr at 09:35 A.M. EST on Mon Dec 18, 2006 #
JR: And the thing is, many columnists, reporters, and talk show hosts -- the so-called pros -- also maintain active blogs today.
Those are the ones who "get it," in terms of what blogs, boards, etc., are about and can really do. The columnists, hosts and others in the media who embrace social media understand and appreciate the interactivity. Granted, it's not as good as actually talking face to face with someone, but it's more egaging than traditional media.
I do think that Time wimped out a bit on it's person of the year process. Recognizing the growing potential power of an individual is good, but I don't think social media is a mainstream (yet) as some think.
Mike
posted by miked918 at 10:55 A.M. EST on Mon Dec 18, 2006 #
I am so sick of hearing about this story. This morning I get up and some CNN anchor is fawning all over some people from Time and they are all talking about how brilliant they were to come up with this.
And then the CNN anchor bobs her head left and right with a beauty pagaent smile and says something particularly vapid like "I hate it when they name more than one person in the same year". My god, there are people that actually care what Time magazine's little marketing ploy is on any given year? CNN anchors I guess - not surprising.
I couldn't name a single past person of the year if you held a gun to my head. The whole thing is treated like it is some kind of revered cultural institution. I think the only thing dumber than Time naming a person of the year is Time naming everyone the person of the year.
posted by babbleman at 05:27 P.M. EST on Mon Dec 18, 2006 #
What cracks me up is the genuinely "blogosphere" response to the news.
"An award for us? THAT'S WEAK, TIME. WAY TO BE A PANHANDLER." :)
Not that I agree with the decision, I felt that if anybody, "Scandal-Ridden Republicans" should have been given the nod.
posted by TheTalentedMrC at 06:37 P.M. EST on Mon Dec 18, 2006 #
Well, I think it was a good choice. The Web has taken on a new angle, an angle that will only get more important as time goes on. The power of the Web is to create a link to primary sources. Media used to be the middle person, but the Web is allowing us to go directly to the source. This is powerful and can be useful too. Last year was Bono and Bill and Melinda Gates----yawner. This year it is the Web users, who are changing how things operate.
posted by chrismyers at 08:38 P.M. EST on Mon Dec 18, 2006 #
Jr quoted WSPD's Brian Wilson: “I haven't seen [the blogs or blogs], but every town has a blog, and they are generally populated by Kool-Aid drinkers, mouth-breathers, has-beens, never-will-be people and so on. It's a game that means nothing. It's generally a hobby for someone to masturbate their ego anonymously. I've been in this business 40 years. They're listeners. They have no clue how this business works.”
Ooh! Didn't Ghandi say?:
“First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.”
So, for Wilson, which stage of opposition is this? Yes, it looks a serious case of Stage 2 Opposition. Dr. GuestZero prescribes a few more lost audience members to advance Wilson's condition to Stage 3. Of course, there's a chance that his condition could go into remission and he could revert to Stage 1; if so, his disease could be systemic and be with him for his entire life.
posted by GuestZero at 05:09 A.M. EST on Tue Dec 19, 2006 #
Syndicate ToledoTalk
