Slashdot Mirror
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."
How are you, gentlemen?
How could Time pick such a self-absorbed, idiotic loser as Person of the Year?
They should have spelled it "YUO". That would have been funny.
In truth it's Time acknowledging we are a narcacistic society.
Inanimate carbon rod.
Let me be the first to say how lame Time was picking this, when Salon made a much more interesting pick.
This post was generated by a Cadre of Uber Monkeys for Monkey-Man2000 (603495).
My resume will now say "Time Person Of The Year 2006"
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.
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!
.... We need to come up with an acceptance speech?
This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
And here I was, thinking they were going to pick everyone else!
Oh happy day.
It comes with a prize right? It has to come with a prize. What? It doesn't??? Lame. Give it to someone else then.
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.
... aimed at a narcissistic society.
And it will work. This issue will be one of the biggest sellers ever.
Why did they pick internet culture (basicly what they are saying) as the person of the year?
Where there no great people this year? Did no one do anything that really stood out (or a series of events)?
Personaly I think that is true. We have no heros at the moment. There are no more (for the moment) world famus individuals that shape how we act/view the world. All we have are big names that the world looks at and wory about.
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).
As for picking internet culture instead?
Meh.
It hasn't changed much since last year. Bogs, web 2.0, what ever you wana focus on was all just as active last year as it was this year.
Do Or Do Not, There Is No Spoon, There Is Only Zuul. Everything in the above post is probably opinion.
No individual recognition. Less money than a nobel. Lame.
There is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men. -- Boondock Saints
An anachronistic publication chooses a "man of the year" and we're supposed to care?
In other news, the Communist Party has named Fidel Castro it's man of the year again, just beating out Hugo Chavez. Slashdot names CmdrTaco man of the year. Microsoft names Major Nelson man of the year. I think the NY Times is going to make "the international terrorist" their person of the year. And international terrorists are going to name "the NY Times reporter" their person of the year, just beating out "the Associated Press reporter" despite the AP's recent efforts to catch up.
I'm nominating myself for my own Kohath man of the year award this year. I think I might win.
Don't forget the other 52% of the population!
I just read
George W is going to read this.
thegodmovie.com - watch it
This pick is certainly more appealing than next year's pick: The Machines.
2*31*37*263
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?
English is easier said than done.
I for one would like to welcome myself as our new digital overloard.
Table-ized A.I.
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. I
We saw this quite clearly in 1999/2000 when Time chose its "Person of the Century" -- not Hitler, Stalin, or Mao, but Albert Einstein. That issue then included a two-page essay full of incoherent waffling about why they didn't pick Hitler, Stalin, or Mao. But if you establish the basis of the award as "the individual who had the greatest influence on history, for good or ill," there's no rational way to exclude the world-class jerks.
"...as Person of the Year because you control the Information Age."
But the people who "control the Information Age" voted Hugo Chavez as person of the year on Time Magazine's online poll.
Of course, Chavez is a socialist working to empower Venezuela's poor -- a politically incorrect position for AOL-Time Warner's corporate management.
So much for the people of the Internet controlling the Information Age -- corporate America is firmly in control.