Time Magazine Person of the Year — It's You

Thib writes to point out that Time Magazine has picked you — or us, or the Internet — as Person of the Year because you control the Information Age. From the article: "But look at 2006 through a different lens and you'll see another story, one that isn't about conflict or great men. It's a story about community and collaboration on a scale never seen before. It's about the cosmic compendium of knowledge Wikipedia and the million-channel people's network YouTube and the online metropolis MySpace. It's about the many wresting power from the few and helping one another for nothing and how that will not only change the world, but also change the way the world changes."

Comments

Re:What does this say?

[PCM2]

My realization on this came a few weeks ago when listening to some random news in the morning (NPR), and hearing a report reffer to Bush as "Mr. Bush" repeatedly. It sorta stuck in my head, it was the only time I can remember a reporter calling a sitting prez "Mr. *****" instead of "President *****", even when they were from the opposite side of the political fence (Fox to a dem, NPR to a Repub, etc).

When the Constitution was drafted, the president was specifically not meant to be a monarch or figurehead of extreme distinction. My understanding is that the honorific "Mister" has always been acceptable for a president, sitting or otherwise.

But here is what NPR has to say on the matter:

The title, such as "President," "Mr." or "Ms.", in front of a name is called an honorific. NPR uses the honorific "President" on first reference and then "Mr." for all subsequent mentions. This has been NPR's style going back at least to the Ford administration. Most other broadcasters have the same policy. It also makes for better writing to vary the honorific.

Newspapers seem to have a different standard. For some reason, the president is usually referred to as "President Bush" or "the president," on first reference. But the honorific is rarely used on second reference. And in newspaper headlines particularly, the solitary "Bush" is often seen.

The president is the only person who -- by decree and tradition at NPR -- gets the honorific. All others who are mentioned in news reports are usually referred to by their title or occupation on first reference ("Jane Doe is a reporter for The New York Times..."). After that, it's surnames only.

Yeah, well, that's like, just Time's opinion, man.

[hunterx11]

There is even a reflective cover so that you can see yourself in the magazine, so there's really only one question to ask:

Are you a Lebowski achiever?

Re:Lame. . .

[meta-monkey]

Actually, no, the video was not made popular by YouTube or blogs at all. Sidarth, the videographer, worked for the Webb campaign, and brought the tape to the other staffers after the event, and they sat on it for a week or so until the Washington Post ran a story about it, and then the 24/7 news networks jumped on it during a slow news week. It wasn't put on the internet or YouTube until AFTER the major media outlets deemed it "newsworthy." So in this way it's almost the complete opposite of Time's "Man of the Year" web2.0 deal. According to Time, big news is now being made organically by people sharing stuff on YouTube. In the "macaca" case, the same old big media outlets made it news, and then people shared it on the web after the fact. This is Web 1.0.

I think it was a stupid move by Salon, though, simply because of the almost "manufactured" nature of the story. I mean, what the hell is a "macaca?" Who ever heard of this word, or would have even reconized it as an insult before this "story?" Apparently it was, at one time, used by French speakers in North Africa to refer to blacks. That is a truly obscure racial epithet. I just checked Wikipedia, and the entry for this word didn't exist until after the story broke. Now, I'm not saying that Allen isn't a racist. I don't know much of anything about the guy. But I find it bizarre that, first, he actually was aware of this slur, and that second, a seasoned politician would use intentionally use a racial slur against someone pointing a video camera directly at him.

Allen says he just made up the word, and was maybe inspired by the guy's mohawk-like haircut. That seems far more likely to me, anyway.

I don't really understand Salon's choice here. The guy didn't do anything special. He wasn't a "new journalist" blogger, following candidates and reporting on what they do on the internet. He was a volunteer for the opposing candidate, recording his speeches to help plan their strategy. The story was broken by the Washington Post and aired on CNN and Fox before it ever hit the internet. Therefore, there's no Web 2.0 angle here. This exact story could have taken place 15 years ago. The only difference would have been a VHS tape instead of a MiniDV. Can anybody tell me what about this story makes it special or contemporary, or gives us some kind of insight into how politics will work in the future?

Re:Sad choice

[Danny Rathjens]

You may be correct, but how many people like us that feel this way actually subscribe to Time magazine? The only people's opinion they have to concern themselves with are their readers - and potential readers which arguably we are also not a part.

Screw Time for being cowards - "You" doesn't deserve to be Person of the Year any more than "Wheels" deserve to be Conveyance of the Year, or "Computers" deserve to be "Device of the Year".

Apparently you invented those last two yourself because "Wheels" were never chosen; but coincidentally, Time chose "the Computer" as man of the year in 1982.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Magazine's_Perso n_of_the_Year