Why would any editor, especially one from TIME, approve George W. Bush as "Man of the Year"??????!?!?!?!?!?!?!? I am trully astonished, I never thought it would go this far.
George Bush makes me want to throw up; no one else has ever impacted me like that...kimmyeatworldDecember 20 2004, 15:13:27 UTC
Time is connected to too many big businesses now to EVER pick a controversial, but deserving candidate.
Osama bin Laden should have been man of the year. He has had the most impact globally. Now security screening at the airport has become an arduous and intrusive process (I once got asked to take my sweater off, when all I had on underneath was a sheer tank top...and the security guy wouldn't take no for an answer. I wouldn't think terrorists actually would implant plastic explosives, WMD, or knives in their boobs, but that initiative did come from the biggest boob ever alive, George, so it figures. Thank you, Osama, for making an airport strip/search a "necessary procedure."
Foreign countries hate American tourists because of our isolationist policies due to the 9/11 attacks, terrorist threats make everyone nervous,little kids have nightmares about him, no one has been able to catch him, and most adults can recognize his picture, and whenever he releases a video, every news source covers it as a "breaking top story" and prattles on about it for MONTHS.
or
J.K. Rowling. Those Harry Potter books/movies are taking over the world. At least kids (and adults) are finally reading something.
BUT
Time's choice was predictable because...
Every elected President of the United States since Franklin Delano Roosevelt has been a Person of the Year at least once. Many were chosen simply for accomplishing the feat of being elected to that office.
The title "Man of the Year" is, in ignorance, sometimes mistakenly assumed to be an honor. There was a massive public backlash in the United States after Time named Ayatollah Khomeini Man of the Year in 1979. Since then, Time has often shied away from choosing overly controversial candidates. Time's Person of the Year 2001 - in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks - was New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani. It was a somewhat controversial result; many thought that Giuliani was deserving, but also many thought that the rules of selection ("the individual or group of individuals who have had the biggest effect on the year's news") made the obvious choice Osama bin Laden. They cited previous choices such as Adolf Hitler demonstrating that Man of the Year did not necessarily mean "Best Human Being of the Year." It is interesting to note, that the edition which declared Rudolph Giuliani as 'Man of the year', had a section which mentioned their earlier choices of Ayatollah Khomeini as man of the year and rejection of Hitler as man of the century, which indicated to many that Osama bin Laden was stronger candidate for 'man of the year', but was not selected due to his 'Negative' role. Similarly Hitler was stronger candidate for 'man of the century' but was rejected due to his 'negative' role.
According to stories in respected newspapers, Time's editors anguished over the choice, fearing that selecting the al-Qaeda leader might offend readers (and advertisers). Adding a wrinkle to the equation was the fact that bin Laden had already appeared on its covers on October 1, November 12, and November 26. Many readers expressed dissatisfaction at the idea of seeing his face on the cover again. In the end, Giuliani's selection led some to criticize that Time had chickened out.
In recent years, the choices for Person of the Year have also been criticized for being too Americentric, which is a departure from the original tradition of recognizing foreign political leaders and thinkers. The last non-American Person of the Year was Pope John Paul II in 1994.
Re: George Bush makes me want to throw up; no one else has ever impacted me like that...earthdogDecember 20 2004, 15:57:32 UTC
According to stories in respected newspapers, Time's editors anguished over the choice, fearing that selecting the al-Qaeda leader might offend readers (and advertisers).
Re: George Bush makes me want to throw up; no one else has ever impacted me like that...kimmyeatworldDecember 20 2004, 17:41:28 UTC
It's pathetic that the magazine that once elected "Adolf Hitler" as man of the year is so obsessed with advertisers and readers. Screw advertisers... Time is one of the most popular U.S. magazines. If advertisers bailed, others would snap up the chance. Secondly, in my opinion, literature is supposed to evoke passionate feelings, either positive or negative. I don't want to be fed candy coated bits of literary crap because it gives everyone else a warm fuzzy feeling. If I wanted that, I'd only watch molly ringwald movies. I want reality, even if it means that it makes me depressed or pissed off.
On a different note, I'm obsessive about grammar.
"duh! It is a magazine. It's job is to sell SUVs and Mutural Funds."
It actually is "Its." "It's" is the contraction for "it is."
Osama bin Laden should have been man of the year. He has had the most impact globally. Now security screening at the airport has become an arduous and intrusive process (I once got asked to take my sweater off, when all I had on underneath was a sheer tank top...and the security guy wouldn't take no for an answer. I wouldn't think terrorists actually would implant plastic explosives, WMD, or knives in their boobs, but that initiative did come from the biggest boob ever alive, George, so it figures. Thank you, Osama, for making an airport strip/search a "necessary procedure."
Foreign countries hate American tourists because of our isolationist policies due to the 9/11 attacks, terrorist threats make everyone nervous,little kids have nightmares about him, no one has been able to catch him, and most adults can recognize his picture, and whenever he releases a video, every news source covers it as a "breaking top story" and prattles on about it for MONTHS.
or
J.K. Rowling. Those Harry Potter books/movies are taking over the world. At least kids (and adults) are finally reading something.
BUT
Time's choice was predictable because...
Every elected President of the United States since Franklin Delano Roosevelt has been a Person of the Year at least once. Many were chosen simply for accomplishing the feat of being elected to that office.
The title "Man of the Year" is, in ignorance, sometimes mistakenly assumed to be an honor. There was a massive public backlash in the United States after Time named Ayatollah Khomeini Man of the Year in 1979. Since then, Time has often shied away from choosing overly controversial candidates. Time's Person of the Year 2001 - in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks - was New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani. It was a somewhat controversial result; many thought that Giuliani was deserving, but also many thought that the rules of selection ("the individual or group of individuals who have had the biggest effect on the year's news") made the obvious choice Osama bin Laden. They cited previous choices such as Adolf Hitler demonstrating that Man of the Year did not necessarily mean "Best Human Being of the Year." It is interesting to note, that the edition which declared Rudolph Giuliani as 'Man of the year', had a section which mentioned their earlier choices of Ayatollah Khomeini as man of the year and rejection of Hitler as man of the century, which indicated to many that Osama bin Laden was stronger candidate for 'man of the year', but was not selected due to his 'Negative' role. Similarly Hitler was stronger candidate for 'man of the century' but was rejected due to his 'negative' role.
According to stories in respected newspapers, Time's editors anguished over the choice, fearing that selecting the al-Qaeda leader might offend readers (and advertisers). Adding a wrinkle to the equation was the fact that bin Laden had already appeared on its covers on October 1, November 12, and November 26. Many readers expressed dissatisfaction at the idea of seeing his face on the cover again. In the end, Giuliani's selection led some to criticize that Time had chickened out.
In recent years, the choices for Person of the Year have also been criticized for being too Americentric, which is a departure from the original tradition of recognizing foreign political leaders and thinkers. The last non-American Person of the Year was Pope John Paul II in 1994.
/end rant.
Reply
Reply
On a different note, I'm obsessive about grammar.
"duh! It is a magazine. It's job is to sell SUVs and Mutural Funds."
It actually is "Its." "It's" is the contraction for "it is."
Reply
Leave a comment