However, adding in the context of "Person of the Year" and I would agree that it's probably not the best message to send people (depending on the subject).
Yes, that's what I'm saying.
Specifically, I was speaking to people being placed on a media throne, i.e., Time's Person of the Year.
So we're in agreement.
We're not, actually, unless your definition of "media throne" is vastly different from mine.
What if the article was titled "Time's Worst Person Of The Year"? Wouldn't that also be a "media throne"? I think that such an article would be fine, if it discussed someone repugnant and it featured their face prominently on the cover.
Note, I'm not even talking about Putin here. Just generally speaking, again. Like...if Stalin's picture were plastered all over Time's cover and the article was called "Time's Worst Russian Person Ever," I'd both call that a media throne and a perfectly acceptable article as well.
However, adding in the context of "Person of the Year" and I would agree that it's probably not the best message to send people (depending on the subject).
Yes, that's what I'm saying.
Specifically, I was speaking to people being placed on a media throne, i.e., Time's Person of the Year.
So we're in agreement.
We're not, actually, unless your definition of "media throne" is vastly different from mine.
What if the article was titled "Time's Worst Person Of The Year"? Wouldn't that also be a "media throne"? I think that such an article would be fine, if it discussed someone repugnant and it featured their face prominently on the cover.
Note, I'm not even talking about Putin here. Just generally speaking, again. Like...if Stalin's picture were plastered all over Time's cover and the article was called "Time's Worst Russian Person Ever," I'd both call that a media throne and a perfectly acceptable article as well.
However, adding in the context of "Person of the Year" and I would agree that it's probably not the best message to send people (depending on the subject).
Yes, that's what I'm saying.
Specifically, I was speaking to people being placed on a media throne, i.e., Time's Person of the Year.
So we're in agreement.
We're not, actually, unless your definition of "media throne" is vastly different from mine.
What if the article was titled "Time's Worst Person Of The Year"? Wouldn't that also be a "media throne"? I think that such an article would be fine, if it discussed someone repugnant and it featured their face prominently on the cover.
Note, I'm not even talking about Putin here. Just generally speaking, again. Like...if Stalin's picture were plastered all over Time's cover and the article was called "Time's Worst Russian Person Ever," I'd both call that a media throne and a perfectly acceptable article as well.
Stalin was Time Man of the Year in 1939 and 1942.
Granted, but that's not related to the point I was making.
I think the uncomfortable thing about this choice (and Hitler, and Stalin, and other various choices Time has made) is that most people like to think of a "person of the year" as being a person who shows positive, upstanding, and maybe even hero-worthy properties. In short, I think the average person would want a "person of the year" to be a positive role model and not a scoundrel.
I suppose it's always been that way for Time. To them, "Person of the Year" means more like "the person who made the most impact on the year" versus "the person who made the most positive impact on the year".
But you see, even Time is inconsistent with their definition. If they were consistent, Osama Bin Laden would have likely been 2001's Person of the Year, and not Rudy Guliani. Certainly the former had more of an actual impact, but far less of a positive one.
Putin won? How provocative! Unfortunately, Russia is still a dump that is still deteriorating. If any Time's writer actually visited the country, they would be immediately disillusioned over what an awful, backwards country it has become and remove Putin from any list grading performance.
TIME's Person of the Year is not and never has been an honor. It is not an endorsement. It is not a popularity contest. At its best, it is a clear-eyed recognition of the world as it is and of the most powerful individuals and forces shaping that world—for better or for worse.
I've read this statement over and over throughout the years, and it has never sat right with me. Plastering a person's photo on the cover of Time magazine is a media endorsement and, as I see it, and endorsement of that person and his or her actions in an ends-justify-the-means way.
Thats ridiculous. Should people not report on news if the news is bad? Is reporting a murder justifying the murder in an ends-justify-the-means way? No? No. Putin made a lot of news this year. Commenting on that fact says nothing about an endorsement, in any way shape or form.
Putin won? How provocative! Unfortunately, Russia is still a dump that is still deteriorating. If any Time's writer actually visited the country, they would be immediately disillusioned over what an awful, backwards country it has become and remove Putin from any list grading performance.
TIME's Person of the Year is not and never has been an honor. It is not an endorsement. It is not a popularity contest. At its best, it is a clear-eyed recognition of the world as it is and of the most powerful individuals and forces shaping that world—for better or for worse.
I've read this statement over and over throughout the years, and it has never sat right with me. Plastering a person's photo on the cover of Time magazine is a media endorsement and, as I see it, and endorsement of that person and his or her actions in an ends-justify-the-means way.
Thats ridiculous. Should people not report on news if the news is bad? Is reporting a murder justifying the murder in an ends-justify-the-means way? No? No. Putin made a lot of news this year. Commenting on that fact says nothing about an endorsement, in any way shape or form.
So how do you explain that Osama Bin Laden wasn't the Man of the Year in 2001?
I'm not saying I'd like to see him as it... but he certainly made more news than Guliani. Much more. I think that the average person would want to see the "Man of the Year" be a title that denotes some kind of positive influence... and I think if Time doesn't feel that way, they're not being entirely consistent about it.
VThornheart on
3DS Friend Code: 1950-8938-9095
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
TIME's Person of the Year is not and never has been an honor. It is not an endorsement. It is not a popularity contest. At its best, it is a clear-eyed recognition of the world as it is and of the most powerful individuals and forces shaping that world—for better or for worse.
I've read this statement over and over throughout the years, and it has never sat right with me. Plastering a person's photo on the cover of Time magazine is a media endorsement and, as I see it, and endorsement of that person and his or her actions in an ends-justify-the-means way.
Thats ridiculous. Should people not report on news if the news is bad? Is reporting a murder justifying the murder in an ends-justify-the-means way? No? No. Putin made a lot of news this year. Commenting on that fact says nothing about an endorsement, in any way shape or form.
So how do you explain that Osama Bin Laden wasn't the Man of the Year in 2001?
I'm not saying I'd like to see him as it... but he certainly made more news than Guliani. Much more. I think that the average person would want to see the "Man of the Year" be a title that denotes some kind of positive influence... and I think if Time doesn't feel that way, they're not being entirely consistent about it.
Blame it on the emotional surge of patriotic nationalism following September 11th.
Can you imagine the backlash from Americans if they had done that back then?
TIME's Person of the Year is not and never has been an honor. It is not an endorsement. It is not a popularity contest. At its best, it is a clear-eyed recognition of the world as it is and of the most powerful individuals and forces shaping that world—for better or for worse.
I've read this statement over and over throughout the years, and it has never sat right with me. Plastering a person's photo on the cover of Time magazine is a media endorsement and, as I see it, and endorsement of that person and his or her actions in an ends-justify-the-means way.
Thats ridiculous. Should people not report on news if the news is bad? Is reporting a murder justifying the murder in an ends-justify-the-means way? No? No. Putin made a lot of news this year. Commenting on that fact says nothing about an endorsement, in any way shape or form.
So how do you explain that Osama Bin Laden wasn't the Man of the Year in 2001?
I'm not saying I'd like to see him as it... but he certainly made more news than Guliani. Much more. I think that the average person would want to see the "Man of the Year" be a title that denotes some kind of positive influence... and I think if Time doesn't feel that way, they're not being entirely consistent about it.
We're well aware Time are inconsistent about who they pick, but they have consistently maintained that the purpose of the title is to denote the person who has had the most influence on the events of the year. People who want only positive influences to be covered can go start their own magazine.
TIME's Person of the Year is not and never has been an honor. It is not an endorsement. It is not a popularity contest. At its best, it is a clear-eyed recognition of the world as it is and of the most powerful individuals and forces shaping that world—for better or for worse.
I've read this statement over and over throughout the years, and it has never sat right with me. Plastering a person's photo on the cover of Time magazine is a media endorsement and, as I see it, and endorsement of that person and his or her actions in an ends-justify-the-means way.
Thats ridiculous. Should people not report on news if the news is bad? Is reporting a murder justifying the murder in an ends-justify-the-means way? No? No. Putin made a lot of news this year. Commenting on that fact says nothing about an endorsement, in any way shape or form.
So how do you explain that Osama Bin Laden wasn't the Man of the Year in 2001?
I'm not saying I'd like to see him as it... but he certainly made more news than Guliani. Much more. I think that the average person would want to see the "Man of the Year" be a title that denotes some kind of positive influence... and I think if Time doesn't feel that way, they're not being entirely consistent about it.
We're well aware Time are inconsistent about who they pick, but they have consistently maintained that the purpose of the title is to denote the person who has had the most influence on the events of the year. People who want only positive influences to be covered can go start their own magazine.
Sure they assert that such is their goal, but if they don't back it up consistently then their assertions aren't worth much, you know what I mean?
Indeed, they may have had their building burned down by overzealous patriots if they'd made Bin Laden man of the year in 2001... but the fact that they chose Guliani shows that (though they claim it's merely newsworthiness and not merit) positive/uplifting merit does in fact come into play in their calculations, at least sometimes. Why not with Putin then? What is their actual standard?
TIME's Person of the Year is not and never has been an honor. It is not an endorsement. It is not a popularity contest. At its best, it is a clear-eyed recognition of the world as it is and of the most powerful individuals and forces shaping that world—for better or for worse.
I've read this statement over and over throughout the years, and it has never sat right with me. Plastering a person's photo on the cover of Time magazine is a media endorsement and, as I see it, and endorsement of that person and his or her actions in an ends-justify-the-means way.
Thats ridiculous. Should people not report on news if the news is bad? Is reporting a murder justifying the murder in an ends-justify-the-means way? No? No. Putin made a lot of news this year. Commenting on that fact says nothing about an endorsement, in any way shape or form.
So how do you explain that Osama Bin Laden wasn't the Man of the Year in 2001?
I'm not saying I'd like to see him as it... but he certainly made more news than Guliani. Much more. I think that the average person would want to see the "Man of the Year" be a title that denotes some kind of positive influence... and I think if Time doesn't feel that way, they're not being entirely consistent about it.
We're well aware Time are inconsistent about who they pick, but they have consistently maintained that the purpose of the title is to denote the person who has had the most influence on the events of the year. People who want only positive influences to be covered can go start their own magazine.
Oh, well as long as they consistently assert that they are consistently doing things that they aren't consistently doing, that's all right then.
Putin won? How provocative! Unfortunately, Russia is still a dump that is still deteriorating. If any Time's writer actually visited the country, they would be immediately disillusioned over what an awful, backwards country it has become and remove Putin from any list grading performance.
I think you're missing the point here.
Yes, I get it, it's based on impact (supposedly), and if that were the case it should have been Hu Jintao.
They once made Ayatollah Khomeini man of the year. Guess where TIME went after that?
Generals on
jsn: and there was some dude(note that: DUDE) dressed up as Mai from KOF
Jeff: I see
jsn: and I was like "I wonder how he goes to the washroom, does he just like...brush his loincloth to the side or what?"
jsn: friend was like "DUDE he's BEHIND YOU"
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
TIME's Person of the Year is not and never has been an honor. It is not an endorsement. It is not a popularity contest. At its best, it is a clear-eyed recognition of the world as it is and of the most powerful individuals and forces shaping that world—for better or for worse.
I've read this statement over and over throughout the years, and it has never sat right with me. Plastering a person's photo on the cover of Time magazine is a media endorsement and, as I see it, and endorsement of that person and his or her actions in an ends-justify-the-means way.
Thats ridiculous. Should people not report on news if the news is bad? Is reporting a murder justifying the murder in an ends-justify-the-means way? No? No. Putin made a lot of news this year. Commenting on that fact says nothing about an endorsement, in any way shape or form.
So how do you explain that Osama Bin Laden wasn't the Man of the Year in 2001?
I'm not saying I'd like to see him as it... but he certainly made more news than Guliani. Much more. I think that the average person would want to see the "Man of the Year" be a title that denotes some kind of positive influence... and I think if Time doesn't feel that way, they're not being entirely consistent about it.
We're well aware Time are inconsistent about who they pick, but they have consistently maintained that the purpose of the title is to denote the person who has had the most influence on the events of the year. People who want only positive influences to be covered can go start their own magazine.
Sure they assert that such is their goal, but if they don't back it up consistently then their assertions aren't worth much, you know what I mean?
Indeed, they may have had their building burned down by overzealous patriots if they'd made Bin Laden man of the year in 2001... but the fact that they chose Guliani shows that (though they claim it's merely newsworthiness and not merit) positive/uplifting merit does in fact come into play in their calculations, at least sometimes. Why not with Putin then? What is their actual standard?
Well if someone does some big bad shit to other people, he gets in.
If someone does big bad shit to US, then we find a guy prop him up as a hero and ignore everything else.
And if readership is down and TIME is trying to get people to like their newly changed format then we pander to the people by making THEM the person of the year with a cheesy reflective cover.
Kagera on
My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
0
Options
HarrierThe Star Spangled ManRegistered Userregular
Putin won? How provocative! Unfortunately, Russia is still a dump that is still deteriorating. If any Time's writer actually visited the country, they would be immediately disillusioned over what an awful, backwards country it has become and remove Putin from any list grading performance.
I think you're missing the point here.
Yes, I get it, it's based on impact (supposedly), and if that were the case it should have been Hu Jintao.
One could make the argument that while China has been rising for a while, this year has really been the first since the collapse of the Soviet Union where Russia has truly been able to act like a major world power.
Harrier on
I don't wanna kill anybody. I don't like bullies. I don't care where they're from.
0
Options
HarrierThe Star Spangled ManRegistered Userregular
edited December 2007
And here's some justification for the selection of Putin by Time's own Russian correspondent, Yuri Zarakhovich.
His perspective is somewhat... different than that espoused by Time's American staff members.
Harrier on
I don't wanna kill anybody. I don't like bullies. I don't care where they're from.
Putin won? How provocative! Unfortunately, Russia is still a dump that is still deteriorating. If any Time's writer actually visited the country, they would be immediately disillusioned over what an awful, backwards country it has become and remove Putin from any list grading performance.
I think you're missing the point here.
Yes, I get it, it's based on impact (supposedly), and if that were the case it should have been Hu Jintao.
TIME's Person of the Year is not and never has been an honor. It is not an endorsement. It is not a popularity contest. At its best, it is a clear-eyed recognition of the world as it is and of the most powerful individuals and forces shaping that world—for better or for worse.
I've read this statement over and over throughout the years, and it has never sat right with me. Plastering a person's photo on the cover of Time magazine is a media endorsement and, as I see it, and endorsement of that person and his or her actions in an ends-justify-the-means way.
Thats ridiculous. Should people not report on news if the news is bad? Is reporting a murder justifying the murder in an ends-justify-the-means way? No? No. Putin made a lot of news this year. Commenting on that fact says nothing about an endorsement, in any way shape or form.
So how do you explain that Osama Bin Laden wasn't the Man of the Year in 2001?
I'm not saying I'd like to see him as it... but he certainly made more news than Guliani. Much more. I think that the average person would want to see the "Man of the Year" be a title that denotes some kind of positive influence... and I think if Time doesn't feel that way, they're not being entirely consistent about it.
We're well aware Time are inconsistent about who they pick, but they have consistently maintained that the purpose of the title is to denote the person who has had the most influence on the events of the year. People who want only positive influences to be covered can go start their own magazine.
Sure they assert that such is their goal, but if they don't back it up consistently then their assertions aren't worth much, you know what I mean?
Indeed, they may have had their building burned down by overzealous patriots if they'd made Bin Laden man of the year in 2001... but the fact that they chose Guliani shows that (though they claim it's merely newsworthiness and not merit) positive/uplifting merit does in fact come into play in their calculations, at least sometimes. Why not with Putin then? What is their actual standard?
Well if someone does some big bad shit to other people, he gets in.
If someone does big bad shit to US, then we find a guy prop him up as a hero and ignore everything else.
And if readership is down and TIME is trying to get people to like their newly changed format then we pander to the people by making THEM the person of the year with a cheesy reflective cover.
It's too bad Putin and the FSB intelligence was proven to have been behind most of the major "Chechyn" terror attacks from 1999-2002 in order to justify the massive invasion of Chechnya that killed tens of thousands of innocents...and then had any journalist or whistleblower that exposed these state crimes assassinated.
But hey, never mind that! Im sure he's a great guy:)
It's too bad Putin and the FSB intelligence was proven to have been behind most of the major "Chechyn" terror attacks from 1999-2002 in order to justify the massive invasion of Chechnya that killed tens of thousands of innocents...and then had any journalist or whistleblower that exposed these state crimes assassinated.
But hey, never mind that! Im sure he's a great guy:)
You're like the dozenth person in this thread to miss the point of being named Person of the Year, unless of course you're being sarcastic.
Harrier on
I don't wanna kill anybody. I don't like bullies. I don't care where they're from.
I'll be the first to say that, given the chance, I'd pay good money to rape Putin with a rusty fifteenth-century razored mace.
But he deserves being named Man of the Year simply by nature of having done great things. Terrible things. He's ruining the country and destroying others. But the terrible things he's done are great nonetheless.
Frankly, if the progress generated by the surge in Iraq holds, he will be responsible for what will probably be one of the greatest turn-arounds in american military history; rescuing a situation many had written off as unwinnable and hopeless.
Posts
And awed.
We're not, actually, unless your definition of "media throne" is vastly different from mine.
What if the article was titled "Time's Worst Person Of The Year"? Wouldn't that also be a "media throne"? I think that such an article would be fine, if it discussed someone repugnant and it featured their face prominently on the cover.
Note, I'm not even talking about Putin here. Just generally speaking, again. Like...if Stalin's picture were plastered all over Time's cover and the article was called "Time's Worst Russian Person Ever," I'd both call that a media throne and a perfectly acceptable article as well.
Stalin was Time Man of the Year in 1939 and 1942.
Granted, but that's not related to the point I was making.
It seems like a pretty decent choice to me.
I think the uncomfortable thing about this choice (and Hitler, and Stalin, and other various choices Time has made) is that most people like to think of a "person of the year" as being a person who shows positive, upstanding, and maybe even hero-worthy properties. In short, I think the average person would want a "person of the year" to be a positive role model and not a scoundrel.
I suppose it's always been that way for Time. To them, "Person of the Year" means more like "the person who made the most impact on the year" versus "the person who made the most positive impact on the year".
But you see, even Time is inconsistent with their definition. If they were consistent, Osama Bin Laden would have likely been 2001's Person of the Year, and not Rudy Guliani. Certainly the former had more of an actual impact, but far less of a positive one.
Thats ridiculous. Should people not report on news if the news is bad? Is reporting a murder justifying the murder in an ends-justify-the-means way? No? No. Putin made a lot of news this year. Commenting on that fact says nothing about an endorsement, in any way shape or form.
I think you're missing the point here.
So how do you explain that Osama Bin Laden wasn't the Man of the Year in 2001?
I'm not saying I'd like to see him as it... but he certainly made more news than Guliani. Much more. I think that the average person would want to see the "Man of the Year" be a title that denotes some kind of positive influence... and I think if Time doesn't feel that way, they're not being entirely consistent about it.
Blame it on the emotional surge of patriotic nationalism following September 11th.
Can you imagine the backlash from Americans if they had done that back then?
We're well aware Time are inconsistent about who they pick, but they have consistently maintained that the purpose of the title is to denote the person who has had the most influence on the events of the year. People who want only positive influences to be covered can go start their own magazine.
Sure they assert that such is their goal, but if they don't back it up consistently then their assertions aren't worth much, you know what I mean?
Indeed, they may have had their building burned down by overzealous patriots if they'd made Bin Laden man of the year in 2001... but the fact that they chose Guliani shows that (though they claim it's merely newsworthiness and not merit) positive/uplifting merit does in fact come into play in their calculations, at least sometimes. Why not with Putin then? What is their actual standard?
Oh, well as long as they consistently assert that they are consistently doing things that they aren't consistently doing, that's all right then.
They had the good samaritans selected for 2005.
And George Bush was selected as MOTY 2004.
They once made Ayatollah Khomeini man of the year. Guess where TIME went after that?
Jeff: I see
jsn: and I was like "I wonder how he goes to the washroom, does he just like...brush his loincloth to the side or what?"
jsn: friend was like "DUDE he's BEHIND YOU"
Well if someone does some big bad shit to other people, he gets in.
If someone does big bad shit to US, then we find a guy prop him up as a hero and ignore everything else.
And if readership is down and TIME is trying to get people to like their newly changed format then we pander to the people by making THEM the person of the year with a cheesy reflective cover.
His perspective is somewhat... different than that espoused by Time's American staff members.
Rowling's probably had a better ending than Christ's. I don't know, I'm only on the fifth book.
Good point! I agree.
Aaaamen, aaaamen, aaaaamen amen amen
But hey, never mind that! Im sure he's a great guy:)
NeoRamen: panoramic cyberpunk gamer comic
But he deserves being named Man of the Year simply by nature of having done great things. Terrible things. He's ruining the country and destroying others. But the terrible things he's done are great nonetheless.
He used the word 'proven', so I'm pretty sure he's either sarcastic or stupid.
Yes.