Time's Person of the Year Is "The Protester"

Hugh Pickens writes "Time's editor Rick Stengel announced on The Today Show that 'The Protester' is Time Magazine's Person of the Year: From the Arab Spring to Athens, from Occupy Wall Street to Moscow. 'For capturing and highlighting a global sense of restless promise, for upending governments and conventional wisdom, for combining the oldest of techniques with the newest of technologies to shine a light on human dignity and, finally, for steering the planet on a more democratic though sometimes more dangerous path for the 21st century.' The initial gut reaction on Twitter seems to be one of derision, as Time has gone with a faceless human mass instead of picking a single person like Tunisian fruit vendor Mohamed Bouazizi who Time mentions in the story and is widely acknowledged as the person who set off the 'Arab Spring.' In 2006, Time chose "You" with a mirrored cover to much disappointment, picked the personal computer as 'Machine of the Year' and Earth as 'Planet of the Year,' proving 'that it should probably just be "Story of the Year" if they aren't going to acknowledge an actual person,' writes Dashiell Bennett. 'By not picking any one individual, they've basically chosen no one.'"

Comments

I am the 1%

[Anonymous Coward]

Who make first post

What about the Tea Party Movement?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or are not all protesters created equal?

Re:What about the Tea Party Movement?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

They definitely seem to have been cruelly ignored by the riot police of America...

Re:What about the Tea Party Movement?

[gorzek]

This selection was more for the Arab Spring protests than the Occupy protests. I think it's a sensible choice.

Re:What about the Tea Party Movement?

[14erCleaner]

Funny, this is exactly the type of pompous pinhead slashdot response I was expecting to see.

Nice, a self-referential response.

Re:What about the Tea Party Movement?

[gl4ss]

They definitely seem to have been cruelly ignored by the riot police of America...

That's what happens when you show up, wave signs, yell and shout, give speeches ... and go home when the park closes.

that's not a protest, that's a gay rights celebration party.

tea partiers drive their suv's home. the egypt, tunisia etc protesters didn't - they stayed until something happened.

Re:What about the Tea Party Movement?

[ChromeAeonium]

Haven't seen them complaining about prohibition either. You'd think that the government spending billions telling people what they can and can't grow and consume in their own homes and jailing those who get caught doing it anyway would be seen as a pretty big violation of government overstepping its bounds (especially given that it would put a few of the founders in a federal prison, but sometimes I think they are more into idealized characters of the founders then historical accuracy anyway), but I haven't heard anything about them protesting that one. Small government is not something they care about. They want their government. I think the most damning piece about them is, as you pointed out, that they suddenly appeared once Obama won. I heard nothing from the right about small government until then, but suddenly once the little R after the president's name changed to a D, then they were all about the concept of limited government....but claimed it was for totally non-partisan reasons, natch. Although it remains to be seen (and I'll certainty change my opinion of them if proven wrong), I suspect the majority of the calls for limiting government from the right will stop the moment the little D after the president's name changes to an R, and I highly doubt much else, like what that president actually does, will affect that. You'd think if they really were for small government they'd be for better or worse supporting Ron Paul, but they're not. That says something, namely that real small government would cut the parts of big government they like.

I don't see how the concept means much anyway. I don't care if the government is big or small, I care about the results it gets. For some things, sure, there's too much government, for others, maybe there should be more. Some programs and regulations are excessive, others are necessary. Seems like the 'small government' thing, whatever merit is sometimes has and sometimes doesn't, is more of an easily digested talking point than anything meaningful.

Re:What about the Tea Party Movement?

[mcgrew]

One group is for smaller, less intrusive government

No, they're for dismantling the government's power to regulate large industries so those large industries can screw you over; for dismantling the EPA (let corporations pollute all they want), FAA (as if flying isn't bad enough that I refuse to any more), the department of energy (as if we're not close to peak oil), deregulating banks so they can screw you over easier, etc.

Oh, and they're for lower Federal taxes even though taxes are lower than any time since the Truman administration. But they don't want to lower my middle class taxes, they scream bloody murder when the Democrats want to lower them, they want to lower taxes on the rich and only the god damned rich. Oh, and they pretend to be Christians even though Christ was against everything they're for (e.g., taxes -- "render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's" and "it's as hard for a 1%er to get to heaven as for a camel to go through the eye of a needle").

Another group want someone else to pay thier student loans, free healthcare, not willing to start at the bottom and work thier way up. Generally want somone else to support them.

Where does this incorrect garbage you teabaggers spew come from, anyway? That is NOT what Occupy is for. In fact, it's the 1% that you idiot teabaggers support that demand government entitlements -- like grants to oil companies, for example.

Tea party is for the 1% and the 1% only, and anyone in the 99% who support them are incredibly stupid.

Can't remember, which group was throwing malatov cocktails at police?

Neither one, that was rioters in England. Or did Rush tell you different?

Re:What about the Tea Party Movement?

[jd]

Your analysis of the OWS is provably false because the OWS doesn't have any such stance. That you would bother to post without doing any research is evidence of your ignorance and vindication of my point. The ignorant are destructive, the knowledgeable are constructive.

I would also point out that the nations with free health care have longer life expectancies, lower child mortality and fewer preventable deaths. That has nothing to do with the rich being "evil", that has to do with the ethics of not butchering those segments of the population you don't like. Or can I take it you approve of selective culls of anyone not sharing your politics?

I would further point out that the US not only ranks below virtually every Western nation on happiness, education, corruption prevention and crime prevention, it also ranks below virtually every Western nation on political involvement, political transparency, political ethics, political discourse and political maturity. The cause of these latter ones is simple to identify -- ideological "purity" fetishists, of which you are clearly one. The cause of the former is through LACK of government, not excess of it.

OWS has nothing against people being rich, and it's hard to call 80% of the American population a voting minority -- well, unless you first believe that you have suddenly gained the UNCONSTITUTIONAL right to disenfranchise 80% of Americans.

The Tea Party has absolutely zero understanding of the Constitution, pressured the House to ignore one amendment (which requires the Government to make good on debts) and has sought to repeal another. Sorry, but the Tea Party is not about adhering to the Constitution, it is about the Constitution's destruction.

The Tea Party likes the role model of Somalia - a nation run by religious extremists with heavy weapons but without any kind of government structure. It doesn't? Well, care to explain (a) why the religious extremists are the ones in America with the heavy weapons, (b) why those extremists are the ones the Tea Party wants as political leaders, and (c) what the hell you THINK would happen if the US had no government (the smallest government you can have)? Perry has already stated he wants the Presidency dissolved, so no, you can't get away with saying they want "minimal" government. They've made it clear they want NONE. Anarchy. Somalia-style warlord fiefdoms. THAT is what the Tea Party is explicitly advocating and THAT is what you are supporting.

Re:What about the Tea Party Movement?

[MonsterTrimble]

Disclaimer: I am Canadian.

While it's true that the TP organizers emphasize that they're all about /fiscal/ conservatism, if you'll look at who makes up the movement and who said movement has collectively elected to represent them, it's pretty socially conservative as well, and hawkish, i.e. conservative Republicans.

This is what I don't get about the United States. Why is there a connection between social and fiscal conservatism? Just because you believe there should be legal same sex marriages means that you want to fund everything, raise taxes sky high and spend like a drunken sailor on shore leave? Or that you believe in God means you don't believe there should be nationalized healthcare? It doesn't make sense. You would think that the time is right for a social-liberal/fiscal-conservative party to rise up and take the middle ground.

Re:What about the Tea Party Movement?

[Quiet_Desperation]

The religious types took over the GOP- simple as that.

Back in the day (hey, stop yawning!) even the likes of Nixon actually *warned* against mixing politics and religion. He was buddies with Billy Graham, but Nixon, a Quaker, is said to have expressed concerns that his dealings with Graham would be interpreted as politicial rather than personal.

Even wacky Goldwater figured out religion and politics shouldn't mix.

I'd say the real turning point was when Pat Robertson beat then VP George Bush in the 1988 Iowa Caucuses. That was where the religious right figured it all out after about a decade of working the system. Robertson's campaign eventually failed, but they learned a lot there. In hindsight it's clear why they disbanded the "Moral Majority" in the following year- they realized the big preachy public organizations didn't work. they needed to hit the system at it's innards.

I hate to say it as I pretty much loathe organized religion of any type, but I kind of admire what they did. They set a goal of taking power, and quietly and within the system did so. They didn't squat in parks. They didn't walk around rallies with rifles slung over their shoulders. They didn't take dumps on police cars or draw arbitrary divisions between two emotional sounding percentages. They proceeded logically and deliberately toward their goal.

Sometimes you have to respect an enemy, even if begrudgingly, before you can defeat them. Patton understood that one.

You would think that the time is right for a social-liberal/fiscal-conservative party to rise up and take the middle ground.

I'd like to see a Party that has no agenda other than "We will do whatever it takes to most efficiently mitigate a problem without concern what ideological banner that solution falls under, and we will not get lost in an endless and fruitless quest for perfection that cannot exist."

Bonus points for: "If government involvement will clearly make things worse, or fails to make reasonable improvements after a predetermines trial period, we will consider not doing anything until the situation changes or new resources/concepts justify revisiting the issue."

Re:What about the Tea Party Movement?

[ukemike]

I'm told that in the rest of the world Time magazine is still a reputable source of news reporting. Perhaps this will help you understand better. http://www.businessinsider.com/these-time-magazine-covers-explain-why-americans-know-nothing-about-the-world-2011-11

They Didn't Choose 'No One'

[eldavojohn]

'By not picking any one individual, they've basically chosen no one.'

Aside from the obvious one percent that didn't protest, there's another element of society that I happen to belong to. I'm not the 1% but I have a job. As such I stood by with at most sympathy and some odd feelings of survivor's guilt as I saw protests unfold in cities around my country. Yet I still had deadlines to make at work. So I'm not Time's Person of the Year but the protesters are because I sat here and sipped Lapsang Souchong tea while they made headlines. And that isn't no one, I think that's actually a very select group of people that were there, were non-violent and had a message. Other people that used the opportunities to loot or arson probably aren't proud enough to say it but Time Magazine has definitely selected a small set of people from around the world to be the Person of the Year. And I disagree that it was a bad choice and that it somehow represents 'no one.'

Sort of off-topic but every time I hear about protesting, this video pops into my head. I will opine that in this video you will see what aspects you want to see about protesting. But I think that it encapsulates a lot about protests -- even from the comparatively non-violent protests of G20 last year in Toronto. From the pacifying elements of society to the occasional brutality involved from either side, this video is oddly satisfying for me.

Re:TGINS

[identity0]

Although on second thought, "Anonymous" would have been a good choice as well.

Not just the hacker group or 4channers, but all people acting anonymously, like whistleblowers and protesters. Would have been an counterpoint to Zuckerberg.

Occupy hasn't been co-opted?

[drnb]

The Tea Party has been co-opted into Fox News' astroturfing arm.

No more than the Occupy movement has been co-opted by the Democratic party and its operatives. For example union support and funding leading to a morphing of banning donation by organization to banning donations by corporations. Unions are no more people than corporations. Union members are people, just like corporate employees. Union and corporate interests should be represented through their members and employees, not through the union leadership and corporate CEOs with the political connections and big checkbooks.

Plus there is the whole problem of the real Occupy movement voice being crowded out by the fringe far left, the campers, much as the real Tea Party voice was drowned out by the fringe far right. The real voices just are not as interesting to TV as the fringe.

Economic Justice

[eldavojohn]

I'd agree with you except for the part about having a message.

What I garnered from the more cognizant participants was they wanted one thing: economic justice.

I still can't figure out what they were protesting other than the fact that some people have a shitload more money than other people. As for those rich people getting their money in ethically challenged ways...

Yeah, so I think the real upsetting aspect of "some people have a shitload more money than other people" is how that came to be. I mean, just watching the Daily Show I see it all the time like my hard working father is now jobless and has to drive across three states to work and lives out of an RV away from his wife and home while the fed hands out $13 billion in just free cash to banks? Are you serious? That's not economic justice! Our government bought up tons of shitty toxic assets from dumbshit investors to 'save' them yet no one tried to 'save' the jobs of the working class by just dumping billions of dollars into the rest of America. And when are those investments sold back to the original investors who made the stupid mistake to buy them? When do those people that made imprudent investment decisions get their comeuppance? Or is it only people that just tried to hold on to their jobs that have to pay for that fuck up?

well that's not particularly new, nor is it ever going to change.

You know I think people are okay when you can present them some convincing argument why the 1% deserve the Lion's share of the wealth. But when you paint them as bitching hippies who don't know what they want, you are really part of the problem. I don't want corporations to have more rights than individuals. Reinstate the Glass-Stegall Act to regulate speculation and stop corporations from internationally shifting funds in order to avoid paying the same damn income taxes I pay!

To just say "Aw, the 1% are just harder workers than you and deserve these rewards" is more ignorant than the protesters who don't know what they want.

The way Time is going...

[Hollinger]

The way Time is going, next year they'll name "The Subscriber."

Re:Not a Person

[timeOday]

The Occupy movement is united in the belief that the distribution of wealth is too skewed towards the top. Beyond that (including how to fix the problem), I agree. But it's not just them. Look at Egypt, they toppled their govt, but there is no apparent replacement. Same with Libya. There is no George Washington apparent. I truly hope they come out of this better than they went in.

Occupy a creation of Adbusters media organization

[drnb]

Deluded much?

No, just misinformed. While Occupy may have been co-opted by the Democratic Party, ACORN and related groups who are desperate for a tea party organization of their own, Occupy is a creation of the Canadian media organization Adbusters who is related to the former.

"The Adbusters Media Foundation is a Canadian-based not-for-profit, anti-consumerist, pro-environment[1] organization founded in 1989 by Kalle Lasn and Bill Schmalz in Vancouver, British Columbia. Adbusters describes itself as "a global network of artists, activists, writers, pranksters, students, educators and entrepreneurs who want to advance the new social activist movement of the information age." Characterized by some as anti-capitalist or opposed to capitalism,[3] it publishes the reader-supported, advertising-free Adbusters, an activist magazine with an international circulation of 120,000[4] devoted to challenging consumerism ... Adbusters has launched numerous international campaigns, including Buy Nothing Day, TV Turnoff Week and Occupy Wall Street, and is known for their "subvertisements" that spoof popular advertisements."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adbusters

Re:Better double check who you pick

[RazorSharp]

That's nothing. Look what Stalin did. He won the it twice. Hitler won in 1938.

The funny thing is, the Time "Person of the Year" has been pretty stupid ever since they changed it from "Man of the Year" to "Person of the Year." To me, that represented when they decided to prioritize political correctness over honesty (1999). We had GWB in 2000 (the year he spent mostly on vacation), Rudy Giuliani in 2001 (the year Osama bin Laden was the clear 'winner'), 'The Whistleblowers' in 2002 (inciting this trend of non-persons - it had been done in the past but sparingly), 'The American Soldier' in 2003, GWB again in 2004, 'The Good Samaritans' in 2005, 'You' in 2006 (probably the worst choice ever), Putin in 2007, Obama in 2008, Bernanke in 2009 (first justifiable choice of the decade - the last year of it), Zuckerberg last year (Julian Assange clear 'winner'), and now this protestor bullshit.

Basically, Time Person of a Year is a joke.

Also, the chart you cite is full of inaccuracies, bias, and lies.

Stopped being credible in 2001

[GodfatherofSoul]

When they made the cowardly decision not to make it Osama Bin Laden. It wasn't intended to be a high school popularity contest; it was the biggest news maker of the year; e.g. Hitler during the WWII era. That's when they started the slide into marketability-driven choices.