Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Time Magazine Person of the Year — It's You

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the who-me? dept.

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."

8 of 244 comments (clear)

  1. Sad choice by edwardpickman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In truth it's Time acknowledging we are a narcacistic society.

    1. Re:Sad choice by vought · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's also sad because it shows how cowardly and indecisive the press is these days.

      Unable to choose and analyze a single figure honestly, Time decided to pick everyone and to laud their audience with praise about how something created and maintained by very few (the Internet) has enabled millions to show their creativity, stupidity, whatever.

      Instead of selecting a figure that has truly affected all of us, Time showed the same cowardice they displayed by choosing Rudy Guiliani in 2001. Instead of a true "Person of the Year", they chose to pick a "Person" who is unassailable, insulating Time from having to make a tough choice or controversial conclusions about their "Person", and avoiding the accompanying criticism that many in the media seem to fear so much these days.

      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".

  2. Person of the Year is irrelevent ever since... by jjohnson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They passed on naming Osama bin Laden in 2001. The original intent was to name the person with the greatest impact. In 1938 Hitler was Man of the Year; in 1939 it was Stalin, just because the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact gave Hitler breathing room to invade the rest of Europe.

    In 2001 bin Laden was obviously the personage with the most impact, but people have come to see Person of the Year as laudatory, so now Time is constrained to pick popular figures rather than infamous ones, even if it's the infamous who mattered more.

    --
    Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
    1. Re:Person of the Year is irrelevent ever since... by udderly · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In 2001 bin Laden was obviously the personage with the most impact, but people have come to see Person of the Year as laudatory, so now Time is constrained to pick popular figures rather than infamous ones, even if it's the infamous who mattered more.

      Exactly...a classic sellout. Time is a gutless rag that is more interested in marketing than anything else, and they were afraid that they would lose subscribers and advertising dollars.

      Mahmoud Ahmadinejad probably should have been the MoTY this year, but same deal as 2001.

  3. Questionable by spykemail · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Even ignoring that we are a collective and not a person this is kind of corny. It's awesome they're recognizing the trend towards internet communities of individuals working together for the common good but I can't help thinking that this is a cheesy publicity stunt to increase subscriptions.

    --
    Haiku for you!
  4. Person of the year isnt what it used to be by jorghis · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It seems like person of the year is some kind of endorsement these days. They used to just give it to whoever was the most important person of that year or changed the world the most. In the past this has included people who changed the course of world history like Stalin and Hitler. These days they would never put someone like that up as their person of the year. They seem to be focused on picking a choice which is either feel good patriotic (like the president if it happens to be a year when his approval rating is high) or gimicky (like this) in the past decade or so. It is a great example of how journalists in our society are paranoid of saying anything that could be taken as an endorsment of terrorists or any other axis of evil folks these days.

  5. It's a cynically sycophantic marketing scheme ... by khasim · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... aimed at a narcissistic society.

    And it will work. This issue will be one of the biggest sellers ever.

  6. Re:Lame. . . by loftwyr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Time has been copping out for years. They choose something simple or someone inoffensive when there are lots of people who have affected the news (for good or ill).

    If they give up and name it properly, soon it will be Time's Inoffensive Concept/Being of the Year!