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."

22 of 244 comments (clear)

  1. It's You. by croddy · · Score: 5, Funny

    How are you, gentlemen?

    1. Re:It's You. by Cheapy · · Score: 5, Funny

      GREAT! After learning I beat all you sods to become Time Magazine's Person of the Year.

      Suckers.

      --
      Would you kindly mod me +1 insightful?
    2. Re:It's You. by Hawthorne01 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Fantastic! "Time's Person Of The Year" for 2006" will look great on my resume!

      --
      "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
    3. Re:It's You. by WereRaven · · Score: 5, Funny

      You have no chance to subscribe.

  2. What? by grungebox · · Score: 5, Funny

    How could Time pick such a self-absorbed, idiotic loser as Person of the Year?

    1. Re:What? by Mathonwy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The coolest bit though is the ad they have running on the same page. It's from Chrysler. It reads "You may not be the time person of the year... [but you can drive like one]"

      Stupid Chrysler. Just ASSUMING that I wouldn't be the person of the year or something. Sheesh.

      Daily Kos has a nice screen grab of the ad here

    2. Re:What? by Xemu · · Score: 4, Funny

      How could Time pick such a self-absorbed, idiotic loser as Person of the Year?

      Because they felt Paris Hilton has had too much media attention already?

      --
      Tell your friends about xenu.net
  3. Misspelled by rudy_wayne · · Score: 4, Funny



    They should have spelled it "YUO". That would have been funny.

  4. 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. Re:Sad choice by diegocgteleline.es · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's not narcissism. The times person of the 2006 it's only *ME*!

      It's so obvious, I'm so important they don't even need to write my name, just "you".

      So this is not really aimed for a narcissistic society, it's aimed just at me. I'm sorry (well I'm not, it's just an expression), but you're wrong and I'm right.

  5. The runner up was... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Inanimate carbon rod.

  6. Resume by method77 · · Score: 5, Funny

    My resume will now say "Time Person Of The Year 2006"

    1. Re:Resume by robogun · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's never been an honor, with the likes of Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden nominated or winning. I think Time finally noticed the atrocities of myspace users, in terms of damage to the internet not to mention each other.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. CmdrTaco's response by The+Hobo · · Score: 4, Funny

    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
  10. Re:What does this say? by PCM2 · · Score: 4, Informative
    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.

    --
    Breakfast served all day!
  11. Oh dear... by rrohbeck · · Score: 5, Funny

    George W is going to read this.

    --
    thegodmovie.com - watch it
  12. 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!

  13. Oblig Welcoming by Tablizer · · Score: 4, Funny

    I for one would like to welcome myself as our new digital overloard.

    --
    Table-ized A.I.