TIME Magazine Person of the Year: YOU!

[Taliesin]

Well, as Time nominated Us as the Person of the Year...

[Jean-Baptiste]

Congratulations to us! We are all very happy to accept the nomination. :blush: :D :thumbs_up

[Basil]

I heard that Time will be releasing a special edition for the southern United States only:


http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/6048/timemw4.jpg

[Virgil]

Well, as Time nominated Us as the Person of the Year...

Of the stupid things that I've heard, this sounds as one of the stupidest.

[Taliesin]

We'll take that as a compliment.

[Jean-Baptiste]

Of the stupid things that I've heard, this sounds as one of the stupidest.

Yes, we'll all take that as a compliment. You know, Virgil, you're included. :nod:

[RobinHood3000]

...well, now they're not even trying.

[Pendragon]

Of the stupid things that I've heard, this sounds as one of the stupidest.What, Taliesin's commment, or Time putting "Y'all" on the cover? If the latter, friend Virgil, that sounds like a Yankee reaction! :lol: :lol: :lol: http://richmondthenandnow.com/Images/Smiley-Battle-Face-1.jpg


BTW, new humorous signature poem!

[Pensive]

Congratulations to us! We are all very happy to accept the nomination.


Yes, we'll all take that as a compliment. You know, Virgil, you're included.

:lol:

That were some funny comments, in a friendly manner. :)


Of the stupid things that I've heard, this sounds as one of the stupidest.

It doesn't sound too nice, Virgil. Had a quarrel with Mrs. Virgil? :p ;)

[kathycf]

Hmmm...*scratches head* Person of the year, eh? Nobody asked for my vote! :p ;) :p

A bit more festive change for me. :) http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h56/kathycf/smileys/f050.gif

[Virgil]

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. I was referring to the Time idea that everyone was person of the year. If everyone is person of the year, then it really means that no one is person of the year. Perhaps the magazine editors thought it was cute or clever, but it's really, really dumb.

[Scheherazade]

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. I was referring to the Time idea that everyone was person of the year. If everyone is person of the year, then it really means that no one is person of the year. Perhaps the magazine editors thought it was cute or clever, but it's really, really dumb.I will not get into an argument about whether TIME's decision but I am not sure if 'everyone' being the person of the year means no one is.

'I would like to thank everyone...' - Am I thanking no one actually?

'Everyone has worked really hard to make this event come true...' - No one has worked enough?

[Virgil]

I will not get into an argument about whether TIME's decision but I am not sure if 'everyone' being the person of the year means no one is.

'I would like to thank everyone...' - Am I thanking no one actually?

'Everyone has worked really hard to make this event come true...' - No one has worked enough?

I'm not being combative, I just want to explain. I understand what you're saying, it's good manners to be as inclusive as possible. But...

:lol: Well, every one wins the acamedy award. Every football team wins the super bowl. Every writer wins the nobel prize in literature. What then does it mean? What interest would there be in the award ceremony or in watching the super bowl. If you thank people who did not help you, what does it mean to the people who did?

And besides, my poetry here at lit net is worthy of a nobel prize. :D :p

[Scheherazade]

:lol: Well, every one wins the acamedy award. Every football team wins the super bowl. Every writer wins the nobel prize in literature. What then does it mean? What interest would there be in the award ceremony or in watching the super bowl. If you thank people who did not help you, what does it mean to the people who did? Maybe that is just it. It is not about 'winning' in this particular example.

[Pensive]

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. I was referring to the Time idea that everyone was person of the year. If everyone is person of the year, then it really means that no one is person of the year. Perhaps the magazine editors thought it was cute or clever, but it's really, really dumb.

It is not a dumb idea perhaps, because everybody really is the person of a year.

I did not know of Time doing such a thing, but I think that it is a great idea, no ******* actors/actresses/celebrities any longer. We all are people of the year! We word, we gain, we come in Times! :banana:

Oooh I am as good as Newton! I came in Times - the person of the year! :p

[Laindessiel]

One comment though: it should've been Persons of the Year, not Person. Politically. Or am I wrong? :( :confused:

But it's good to think that the editors have thought about every single one of us. Eh? 6 billion of us? Have to buy that copy..

[Pendragon]

And besides, my poetry here at lit net is worthy of a nobel prize. :D :p http://www.cosgan.de/images/midi/nahrung/a017.gif I'll drink to that, Virgil, Yankee or not! :thumbs_up

[Jean-Baptiste]

Isn't the article referring only to those of us who spend our time in forums like this, and other such online activities--sharing our valuable opinions and changing the world with them? ;) That hardly means Everybody is person of the year. I think they were trying to point out that the online movement is becoming more of an influence on a majority of people, whether they actually participate or not, than any individual--and since most of us remain anonymous it's very difficult to place the blame for this on any one person or particular people. Of course, I could be wrong, I only read enough about it to get the gist.

Lovely festive changes, Kathy. :nod:

[Virgil]

Maybe that is just it. It is not about 'winning' in this particular example.

OK, I guess i can now put it on my resume that I was person of the year. That and $1.50 will get me on the New York Subway. :D

[Pensive]

Isn't the article referring only to those of us who spend our time in forums like this, and other such online activities--sharing our valuable opinions and changing the world with them? ;) That hardly means Everybody is person of the year. I think they were trying to point out that the online movement is becoming more of an influence on a majority of people, whether they actually participate or not, than any individual--and since most of us remain anonymous it's very difficult to place the blame for this on any one person or particular people. Of course, I could be wrong, I only read enough about it to get the gist.

Lovely festive changes, Kathy. :nod:

Exactly! :D

[Basil]

Hey! http://img127.imageshack.us/img127/9607/angryrf3.gif

http://img477.imageshack.us/img477/9332/bastardsfg4.jpg

http://img460.imageshack.us/img460/5494/picture1cm3.jpg

[Virgil]

Isn't the article referring only to those of us who spend our time in forums like this, and other such online activities--sharing our valuable opinions and changing the world with them? ;) That hardly means Everybody is person of the year. I think they were trying to point out that the online movement is becoming more of an influence on a majority of people, whether they actually participate or not, than any individual--and since most of us remain anonymous it's very difficult to place the blame for this on any one person or particular people. Of course, I could be wrong, I only read enough about it to get the gist.

Lovely festive changes, Kathy. :nod:

Oh is that what the computer means. I apologize I didn't get that. But is that person of the year? Phenomena of the year perhaps. OK. It's not everyone. Just 50% of the world. :D I'll moderate my criticism. OK it's not the stupidest thing. Just silly.

Basil, that is funny. :lol: How did you get that "excepting Basil" quote in there?

[Jean-Baptiste]

Yes, it's still silly. :goof: Phenomenon of the year, yes, I like that better.

That's true: Basil is not nominated! :lol:

[Scheherazade]

Oh is that what the computer means. I apologize I didn't get that. But is that person of the year? Phenomena of the year perhaps. OK. It's not everyone. Just 50% of the world. :D I'll moderate my criticism. OK it's not the stupidest thing. Just silly.

Basil, that is funny. :lol: How did you get that "excepting Basil" quote in there?I got my copy of this week's TIME this afternoon and just had a chance to scan through it.

The computer on the cover does not imply that the computer or internet is the POY but people who take the time to blog, use Forums etc are -as JB suggested above. Although it is not clear here, there is a foil part on the monitor in the actual copy so when you look at it, you see your own wonky reflection.

The reasoning behin this choice, TIME suggests, that ordinary people like you and I take the time to express themselves on the net and being heard more and more.

Of course, this might be a clever ruse used by TIME magazine to tell those who are in the public eye and so-called celebrities to pull their act together as none did anything worthwhile throughout the year. So much so that 'ordinary' people deserve a recognition more than they do (well, apart from you, Basil! :p)

[Virgil]

http://www.cosgan.de/images/midi/nahrung/a017.gif I'll drink to that, Virgil, Yankee or not! :thumbs_up

:lol: :lol: Thanks Pen. But I'm not a complete Yankee. My views on many things are closer to southerners than those up here. :) Culturally I guess I am.

[Basil]

Although it is not clear here, there is a foil part on the monitor in the actual copy so when you look at it, you see your own wonky reflection.
If the people at Time magazine were thoughtful, they would have sent out personalised copies instead...

http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/1611/pensivegi7.jpg http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/3703/taliesinik9.jpg http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/2747/jeancg8.jpg
http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/801/scheruq8.jpg http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/3856/robinoa9.jpg http://img522.imageshack.us/img522/9348/logostw1.jpg

[RobinHood3000]

Whoo!! Firing an arrow straight out of the monitor! Nicely done, Basil!!

[Virgil]

:lol: I guess I'm the scrooge here and don't deserve being on there. :D

[Scheherazade]

If the people at Time magazine were thoughtful, they would have sent out personalised copies instead...
...As the saying goes, time spent Photoshopping is time well spent!

:p

[Basil]

:lol: I guess I'm the scrooge here and don't deserve being on there. :D
Sorry, Virgil--you can play in our reindeer games:

http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/1941/virgilsg2.jpg

[RobinHood3000]

"Even Though He Thinks That..." HAHA!! :lol:

[dramasnot6]

Eh...everyone is so narcicistic anyway that they all think theyre person of the year.

[Pensive]

If the people at Time magazine were thoughtful, they would have sent out personalised copies instead...

http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/1611/pensivegi7.jpg
That can make a really good avatar... :D

[Virgil]

Hahaha, an opinion piece that agrees with me. :D



Jellyfish of the Year
Your 15 minutes are here!
By Jonah Goldberg

This year’s award for editorial cowardice goes to Time magazine. In a crowded field of competitors, Time stood out for its sausage-spined decision to name everybody the Person of the Year. That’s right. Time’s person of the year is . . . “You.”

In grade school, whenever a student was caught eating candy, the teacher would ask, “Did you bring enough for everybody?” Time carried this logic through to its absurd conclusion: If everybody can’t be Person of the Year, then no one can. “In the future,” Andy Warhol once predicted, “everyone will be famous for 15 minutes.” Well, start your clocks, people.

But, you may ask, what is so cowardly about Time’s decision? And since you are a Person of the Year, how can I refuse to answer a question from such an august personage as yourself?

The intellectual flubber of Time’s decision is manifest on many levels. Though some argue that Time was patting the American people on the head for voting the way they wanted in the last election, the more obvious explanation is that Time’s editors didn’t want to offend anybody. “If you choose an individual, you have to justify how that person affected millions of people,” Richard Stengel, Time’s newly vintaged managing editor, told the Associated Press. “But if you choose millions of people, you don’t have to justify it to anyone.”

Well, isn’t that convenient. Heaven forbid a news editor do something controversial that would have to be defended on the merits. Spare the delicate flowers such hardship!

Stengel added that if Time had to choose a real person to be Person of the Year, it would likely have been Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad “It just felt to me a little off selecting him,” Stengel said.

One might wonder if it felt “a little off” to past Time editors who awarded the Man of the Year award to Hitler in 1938 or to Stalin — twice, once in 1939 and again in 1942 — or to the Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979.

But the answer is that it didn’t bother the old editors, not really. Because Time’s Man of the Year award was originally conceived as something other than the Mother of All Puff Pieces.

Time founder Henry Luce swam against the stream of Marxist determinism which held that history unfolded according to cold, impersonal forces. He believed individuals — i.e. great men and women — matter. He said the original award should go to the person “who most affected the news or our lives, for good or ill, this year.” That was the point of picking Charles Lindbergh as the first Man of the Year — because he, and he alone, seemed to be ushering in a New Age. Hitler was MOY in 1938 because he might have been ushering in a Dark Age. You are Person of the Year because the editors of Time want to live in a Feel-Good Age where everyone is empowered (hence Time’s rationalizations about the people-power of the Internet).

Of course, Time has punted many times before. For example, in 1988, beating the fierce competition, Earth was named “Planet of the Year.” No doubt that choice sounded very clever in the editorial-board meeting.

Time’s 2001 decision, naming Rudy Giuliani person of the year, was even more telling. This was a true profile-in-cowardice moment. There was no intellectually defensible standard for suggesting that the able mayor affected the news or our lives more than Osama bin Laden, who at the time seemed at least to be the Gavrilo Princip of the 21st century. (Princip was the fellow who launched World War I, which in turn launched World War II and the Cold War.)

The only reason not to give bin Laden the title Person of the Year — other than a purely commercial concern about newsstand sales — is that being Person of the Year has become a compliment. Sure, I suppose groups like the Shriners or the Knights of Columbus have always had their Persons of the Year, and they always meant it in a good way. Nonetheless, readers in 1938 and 1979 understood that Hitler and Khomeini weren’t being honored as humanitarians.

What’s changed is that these days celebrity is always a boon. There was a time when infamy mattered, when disrepute had teeth. But infamy has been purged from the lexicon. Now, any publicity is good publicity. Just ask Paris Hilton. Time’s sister publication, People magazine, didn’t start the trend, but it did accelerate it wildly. And it seems that People’s values have seeped into the water supply over at Time, so much so that Time would rather name everyone, and therefore no one, the Person of the Year.

(C) 2006 Tribune Media Services, Inc.

http://author.nationalreview.com/latest/?q=MjE5NQ==

[Madhuri]

Yay!! :banana:

I would love to be the POY, its a good feeling, as I never featured anywhere, I wouldnt mind....:D

[Pendragon]

Well, as Scher knows, I did sneak a sonnet on which voted a certain well-known (no-one on this LitNet, God Forbid!) as Persona Non Grada if you read the sonnet down the left edge, which eagle-eyed Scher did and caught me! http://smilies.vidahost.com/contrib/turb/wolv.gif

[grace86]

My fiancee was talking about all this. I really think it is quite funny. I like the personalized cover idea.

Congratulations to all of us!

[kilted exile]

Nonsense. From what I can figure out is due to user content websites such as YouTube etc, and seeing as that site is full of mostly copyrighted stuff posted without permission in a lot of cases I guess they are saying congratulations plagiarists.

[zanna]

I kinda agree w. Virgil. The opinion piece is good -- what's the point of infamy any more? Very much a cop-out on Time's part. Certainly they could have found someone, either influential for good or otherwise! I'm not sure who I would have picked . . . gonna think about it. What you, Viril? Who would you have picked, since you don't especially care for their choice?

[Virgil]

I kinda agree w. Virgil. The opinion piece is good -- what's the point of infamy any more? Very much a cop-out on Time's part. Certainly they could have found someone, either influential for good or otherwise! I'm not sure who I would have picked . . . gonna think about it. What you, Viril? Who would you have picked, since you don't especially care for their choice?

I don't know. They could have picked Bill Gates or someone influenetial in the computer world if they were thinking along these lines. Certainly they could have picked a politician, one for good or bad. They could have picked some reseach doctor who developed a new way to cure something or a pharmiceutical (sp?) person for coming up with a new drug. Perhaps even Bono for trying to help the African people or to Warren Buffet for donating all his money to charity. For goodness sakes, they could have picked the italian soccer team for winning the world cup. That had world wide interest. But to pick everyone is to pick no one.

[Koa]

I actually liked the idea of acknowledgind that this is the way things are now... people share stuff in the internet and it is cool. People who don't just don't understand what I feel and what I get from forums etc, from just the fact of exchanging opinions/writings/videos with like-minded people around the world. It's not about the 15 mins of fame, it's about nowadays' world. It also implies that "we", the people, control the information, which is obviously not so true and not so simple, but still there's something...news spread faster, better, I can read a newspaper from whereeveriwant just by clicking on its website... that makes the internet world so 'important' and I'm glad I'm part of it. In my country things like forums etc are not so hugely popular as they seem to be in the USA, just this morning a girl I know was talking about youtube and there were people among us that didn't know what it was, it's not that straightforward, if you're not an internet-person you just don't know. That's why I feel a bit part of that "you" as opposed to people who stick to traditional pastimes (not meaning that it's better to waste my time online, not at all, but I'm part of the internet world and I know its basic tools and advantages, even if I'm no expert).

[Koa]

I actually found it funny that Virgil and others took it for 'you' as in literally everybody and even that article seems to, because the internet-person is not everybody at all, is someone like us, as it was pointed out, who uses forums and possibly blogs etc etc etc... which is far far far from everybody... sure it's a lot of people, but...

(and apparently youtube matters a lot in this, that's why the screen looks like youtube's one... uhm and didn't microsoft or someone like that just buy youtube... you know, nothing is really gratuitous...)

[Scheherazade]

That can make a really good avatar...I was thinking the same thing, Pensive! :)

I have to admit I am rather amused by this whole discussion. Seems like majority of us are unable to accept a simple compliment (and this has nothing to do with narcissistic tendencies, in my opinion). I would like to know how many of those who are object to TIME's decision have actually read this issue and/or normally read the magazine.

Here (http://www.time.com/time/personoftheyear/archive/stories/index.html) you can find the complete list of TIME's POY selection since 1927 and they have at times made general selections; eg, the American Soldier in 2003 (Gates and Bono were indeed POYs in 2005, Virgil and there was a great issue about their charitable work).

'Common' people are not passive anymore; they demand to know and be heard and making an effort on this. And, no doubt, the internet has made it much easier for us all.

I would also like to repeat here that looking back at the year, those-who-are-in-the-know (Powers That Be) have done little to none to deserve such title and the magazine might be worries about that too. What's wrong with acknowledging the efforts of the 'ordinary' men and women? Because most of us have very little say in how the world affairs shape or we don't have millions to donate or we don't even have a name to flaunt, we shouldn't get this recognition?

[Jean-Baptiste]

I agree with you completely, Koa.

Virgil: Weren't Bono and Bill, as well as Melinda Gates last year's people of the year?

Oops, didn't mean to pass you over, Scheherazade. Yes, likewise.

[Virgil]

I actually found it funny that Virgil and others took it for 'you' as in literally everybody and even that article seems to, because the internet-person is not everybody at all, is someone like us, as it was pointed out, who uses forums and possibly blogs etc etc etc... which is far far far from everybody... sure it's a lot of people, but...

(and apparently youtube matters a lot in this, that's why the screen looks like youtube's one... uhm and didn't microsoft or someone like that just buy youtube... you know, nothing is really gratuitous...)

Yes there is a general confusion about whether it's everyone in the world (and I labeled that stupid :D ) or internet users (which I labeled silly:D ). Whatever. This is not something I'm really passionate about. Just offered my opinion and reaction. As I rethink it, and weigh everyone's points, I maintain my opinions. Sorry. I'm not belittling us internet junkies. I'm one of you. But that's how I feel. I don't warm up to these feel good things.

[Koa]

I didn't find it confusing at all, it seemed quite direct.
Whether you don't like it is another matter, but I don't see why it should be a 'feel good' thingy. It's the recognition that the internet junkie is not (or not only) an ugly weirdo with socialisation problems or a mentally disturbed pedophile - it's a social phenomenon that exists and shapes the world, as our days are shaped by those minutes or hours we spend online. It is - as it was written somewhere - the town's square (something very important in my kind of culture, as a gathering place) turned into the whole world through a computer. Silly as it is, indeed, but hey this exists and interacts with the world (if the wording makes sense, I'm sleepy) and it's not a prerogative of nerds only anymore.

[RobinHood3000]

Virgil: Weren't Bono and Bill, as well as Melinda Gates last year's people of the year?Yeah, that's what I thought. Maybe Virgil was being facetious?

[Petrarch's Love]

I've gotta go with Virgil on this one. When I heard about this I thought it was a silly idea. It's not that I don't think that the everyman deserves a little recognition, or that there shouldn't be cover stories on the influence of the internet, it's that I don't think the person of the year is the venue for that. My initial impression was that this was a gimicky stunt, and from what I've gathered since, it sounds as though they were going to select Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and shied away because, according to what I understand is a direct quote from Time's editor, "It just felt to me a little off selecting him." If they did make this choice because they were afraid of making a politically controversial one, then it seems to me that it is not a sign of respect to the average person. It's literally distracting people with little mirrors rather than print something that might not necessarily sell the most copies, and which might make my fellow Americans in particular spend a little time thinking about some serious issues in the Middle East.

[subterranean]

:lol: I guess I'm the scrooge here and don't deserve being on there. :D

Shhhh....stop whining! :D

[Jean-Baptiste]

I've gotta go with Virgil on this one. When I heard about this I thought it was a silly idea. It's not that I don't think that the everyman deserves a little recognition, or that there shouldn't be cover stories on the influence of the internet, it's that I don't think the person of the year is the venue for that. My initial impression was that this was a gimicky stunt, and from what I've gathered since, it sounds as though they were going to select Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and shied away because, according to what I understand is a direct quote from Time's editor, "It just felt to me a little off selecting him." If they did make this choice because they were afraid of making a politically controversial one, then it seems to me that it is not a sign of respect to the average person. It's literally distracting people with little mirrors rather than print something that might not necessarily sell the most copies, and which might make my fellow Americans in particular spend a little time thinking about some serious issues in the Middle East.

You make an excellent point Petrarch's Love.

[Virgil]

Yeah, that's what I thought. Maybe Virgil was being facetious?

No I wasn't. I had forgotten. I'm not one who focuses on these mass pop things.

[Jean-Baptiste]

No I wasn't. I had forgotten. I'm not one who focuses on these mass pop things.

Mass-pop junky, am I? :flare: :lol:

I noticed it while looking for the current article.

[SummerSolstice]

Here you go! It is about the internet, but more specifically user-created stuff like Wikipedia and YouTube, and things like journalism-type blogging. The basic idea is that the internet is no longer the Big People talking to the Little People--the Little People have taken it for themselves and are proving they've got just as much to say. I think it's a very great point, but then my Dad is a paragon of internet geekness, so I've got an inherited partiality.



Person of the Year: You
From the December 25, 2006 issue of TIME magazine

(Time.com) -- The "Great Man" theory of history is usually attributed to the Scottish philosopher Thomas Carlyle, who wrote that "the history of the world is but the biography of great men." He believed that it is the few, the powerful and the famous who shape our collective destiny as a species. That theory took a serious beating this year.

To be sure, there are individuals we could blame for the many painful and disturbing things that happened in 2006. The conflict in Iraq only got bloodier and more entrenched. A vicious skirmish erupted between Israel and Lebanon. A war dragged on in Sudan. A tin-pot dictator in North Korea got the bomb, and the president of Iran wants to go nuclear too. Meanwhile nobody fixed global warming, and Sony didn't make enough PlayStation3s.

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.

The tool that makes this possible is the World Wide Web. Not the Web that Tim Berners-Lee hacked together (15 years ago, according to Wikipedia) as a way for scientists to share research. It's not even the overhyped dotcom Web of the late 1990s. The new Web is a very different thing. It's a tool for bringing together the small contributions of millions of people and making them matter. Silicon Valley consultants call it Web 2.0, as if it were a new version of some old software. But it's really a revolution.

And we are so ready for it. We're ready to balance our diet of predigested news with raw feeds from Baghdad and Boston and Beijing. You can learn more about how Americans live just by looking at the backgrounds of YouTube videos -- those rumpled bedrooms and toy-strewn basement rec rooms -- than you could from 1,000 hours of network television.

And we didn't just watch, we also worked. Like crazy. We made Facebook profiles and Second Life avatars and reviewed books at Amazon and recorded podcasts. We blogged about our candidates losing and wrote songs about getting dumped. We camcordered bombing runs and built open-source software.

America loves its solitary geniuses -- its Einsteins, its Edisons, its Jobses -- but those lonely dreamers may have to learn to play with others. Car companies are running open design contests. Reuters is carrying blog postings alongside its regular news feed. Microsoft is working overtime to fend off user-created Linux. We're looking at an explosion of productivity and innovation, and it's just getting started, as millions of minds that would otherwise have drowned in obscurity get backhauled into the global intellectual economy.

Who are these people? Seriously, who actually sits down after a long day at work and says, I'm not going to watch Lost tonight. I'm going to turn on my computer and make a movie starring my pet iguana? I'm going to mash up 50 Cent's vocals with Queen's instrumentals? I'm going to blog about my state of mind or the state of the nation or the steak-frites at the new bistro down the street? Who has that time and that energy and that passion?

The answer is, you do. And for seizing the reins of the global media, for founding and framing the new digital democracy, for working for nothing and beating the pros at their own game, Time's Person of the Year for 2006 is you.

Sure, it's a mistake to romanticize all this any more than is strictly necessary. Web 2.0 harnesses the stupidity of crowds as well as its wisdom. Some of the comments on YouTube make you weep for the future of humanity just for the spelling alone, never mind the obscenity and the naked hatred.

But that's what makes all this interesting. Web 2.0 is a massive social experiment, and like any experiment worth trying, it could fail. There's no road map for how an organism that's not a bacterium lives and works together on this planet in numbers in excess of 6 billion. But 2006 gave us some ideas. This is an opportunity to build a new kind of international understanding, not politician to politician, great man to great man, but citizen to citizen, person to person. It's a chance for people to look at a computer screen and really, genuinely wonder who's out there looking back at them. Go on. Tell us you're not just a little bit curious.

Copyright © 2006 Time Inc.

[RobinHood3000]

Frankly, I think there are far more important things than Wikipedia and YouTube that need attention. A preoccupation with American culture as the most important thing going on in the world strikes me as being a bit frivolous.

[Virgil]

:banana: Thank you Robin. You get a star. Since there are no stars in our bag of smilies, you'll have to settle for a banana. ;)

[Nightshade]

At last acknoledgment :nod:

umm where can I get a copy of that ?:confused: Actually that fits in well with what Im sudying Becasue its true we push the information age on bravo everyone and keep up the good workhttp://www.websmileys.com/sm/fingers/fing24.gif

[Virgil]

Here's another piece of commentary on this subject from probably my favorite columnist writing today.


Is Time Magazine Really Serious?
By George Will

WASHINGTON -- Time magazine asked a large number of people to name the Person of the Year. They were in a populist mood and named the largest possible number of Persons of the Year: Everybody.

Of course. The most capacious modern entitlement is not to Social Security but to self-esteem. So Time's cover features a mirror-like panel. The reader -- but why bother to read the magazine when merely gazing at its cover gives immediate and intense gratification? -- can gaze at the reflection of his or her favorite person. Narcissism is news? Evidently.

To the person looking at his reflection, Time's cover announces, congratulations: "You control the Information Age.'' By "control'' Time means only that everyone is created equal -- equally entitled to create content for the World Wide Web, which is controlled by neither law nor taste.

Richard Stengel, Time's managing editor, says, "Thomas Paine was in effect the first blogger'' and "Ben Franklin was essentially loading his persona into the MySpace of the 18th century, 'Poor Richard's Almanack.''' Not exactly.

Franklin's extraordinary persona informed what he wrote but was not the subject of what he wrote. Paine was perhaps history's most consequential pamphleteer. There are expected to be 100 million bloggers worldwide by the middle of 2007, which is why none will be like Franklin or Paine. Both were geniuses; genius is scarce. Both had a revolutionary civic purpose, which they accomplished by amazing exertions. Most bloggers have the private purpose of expressing themselves, for their own satisfaction. There is nothing wrong with that, but nothing demanding or especially admirable, either. They do it successfully because there is nothing singular about it, and each is the judge of his or her own success.

According to the Pew Internet & American Life Project, 76 percent of bloggers say one reason they blog is to document their personal experiences and share them with others. And 37 percent -- soon, 37 million -- say the primary topic of their blog is "my life and experiences.'' George III would have preferred dealing with 100 million bloggers rather than one Paine.

Stengel says that bloggers and the people who upload videos onto YouTube (65,000 new videos a day; 100 million watched each day) are bringing "events'' to us in ways that are often more "authentic'' than the services of traditional media. But authenticity is easy, and of no inherent value, if it is simply and necessarily the attribute of any bit of reality ("event'') captured on video.

Time's Lev Grossman writes that "an explosion of productivity and innovation'' is under way as "millions of minds that would otherwise have drowned in obscurity'' become participants in "the global intellectual economy.'' Grossman continues:

"Who actually sits down after a long day at work and says, I'm not going to watch 'Lost' tonight. I'm going to turn on my computer and make a movie starring my pet iguana? I'm going to mash up 50 Cent's vocals with Queen's instrumentals? I'm going to blog about my state of mind or the state of the union or the steak-frites at the new bistro down the street? Who has that time and that energy and that passion?

"The answer is, you do. And for seizing the reins of the global media, for founding and framing the new digital democracy, for working for nothing and beating the pros at their own game, Time's Person of the Year for 2006 is you."

There are, however, essentially no reins on the Web -- few means of control and direction. That is good, but vitiates the idea that the Web's chaos of entertainment, solipsism and occasional intellectual seriousness and civic engagement is anything like a polity (a "digital democracy"). Time's bow to the amateurs who are, it strangely suggests, no longer obscure, and in the same game that Time is in, is refuted by a glance -- which is all an adult will want -- at YouTube's most popular videos.

Time's issue includes an unenthralled essay by NBC's Brian Williams, who believes that raptures over the Web's egalitarianism arise from the same impulse that causes today's youth soccer programs to award trophies -- "entire bedrooms full" -- to any child who shows up: "The danger just might be that we miss the next great book or the next great idea, or that we will fail to meet the next great challenge ... because we are too busy celebrating ourselves and listening to the same tune we already know by heart."

The fact that Stengel included Williams' essay proves that Stengel's Time has what 99.9 percent of the Web's content lacks: seriousness.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/12/person_of_the_year_lacks_serio.html

[Nightshade]

Of course the major draw back is that we just get too much so genius could consevibley be slipping away benathe the piles to go unacknowledged for ever.
sad but true.

[Niamh]

I checked out that copy of Time when i was in work this afternoon... what a load of nonsense. Its like they couldn't think of anything else because celebs aint done nothing worth rewarding this year.

If they must insist on voting a person of the year they should select some one who has done something extremely couragous like... i dont know... single handedly rescued five children from an apartment block that went on fire or something. they should research into events that happen in each state, country, what ever, and select the person they believe deserves to be called person of the year for their remarkable courage, whether it be like said rescue or discovering a cure for a life treathening disease.

But thats just my opinion.

[SummerSolstice]

I'm pretty convinced by now that I was the only one that liked it...

[Jean-Baptiste]

I'm pretty convinced by now that I was the only one that liked it...

I still think it is a good decision.

I like George Will as well, Virgil, but I can't go along with him here. Although, I can't go along with the idea of the beneficence of Wikipedia (as it holds no standard of peer-review) and YouTube either. But the issue is on a much greater scale than these seeming giants of the net. I think it's about time that we've officially recognized the revolution in communication that has taken place. What's more, I don't believe there can be any reasonable, or logical arguments against what is ultimately an opinion piece. I see not need for the controversy. Complaining about the decision seems only an insight into a rather bleak outlook on the future, as though this were the last year for acknowlegement of heroism or individual human contribution. There will be more years! Just sit back and wait for the 2007 POY. :as-sleep:

[Scheherazade]

I would like to start by saying that I am really loving the turn this whole discussion has taken! I think it was PL who suggested that TIME made this decision not to be controversial; it seems like, they could not have made a decision any more controversial if they had gone along with an 'unpopular' political figure. :D

Here are couple of points I would like to make (since there have been so many posts, I will not quote anyone):

- Without getting political, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was not the only other candidate considered by the magazine. There were other names such as Kim Jong II, Ms. C. Rice, Hugo Chavez, Nancy Pelosi, Hurley and Chen, G.W. Bush, Al Gore so it was not a case of either Ahamadinejad or 'You'.

- In the past, they named Ayatullah Khomeini, Nikita Khrushchev, Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler etc as the POY so I sincerely doubt they are worried about controversy that much. If anything, controversy should sell more copies. As they say, there is no bad publicity.

- TIME is not an independent, democratic public institution; it is not UN or UNICEF or Red Cross. They simply try to choose person that "for better or worse, has most influenced events in the preceding year" (not necessarily in a positive or heroic way!) according to their own standards and views. They are a privately run company and just happen to have such a feature. So I mostly try to understand the reasoning behind their choice and, since it is their game and rules, I respect their choice. I don't think they are obliged to please the general public.

- I really doubt that they are trying to distract the public as well. TIME is a magazine that covers 'news'; it is not a mainly political magazine. So, it does not shock me that JK Rowling, the Pope, the US President or Martin Scorsese can be on its cover on subsequent weeks. And if American or not, anyone is relying on TIME magazine to name their POY to find out about who these people are, I would simply say 'too late, too little, mate!' By the time these people are named, the year is already over and POY has already had their effect.

After all said and done, I would also like to add as a disclaimer that even though I have been reading this magazine pretty much regularly for the past 12-13 years, I cannot say I share/support their take on many issues but would like to read it because it offers me a different perspective from my own.

[Nightshade]

So again how do I get hold of this magazine?? :confused: :D

[Scheherazade]

We subscribe to TIME so get it delivered to our door with our mail weekly but I am sure European edition would be available at big bookstores and newsagents (maybe at WHSmith?). The good thing with the subscription is that you receive it before it hits the news stands.

[RobinHood3000]

I don't think Internet culture has changed world events in the past year so much as watched it go by.

[Nightshade]

huuuh I wonder if I get a student discount.

[Virgil]

huuuh I wonder if I get a student discount.

They have a version, Night, on the internet:
http://www.time.com/time/
and for the current issue
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/current/

[Nightshade]

oh Thankyou:D

[Scheherazade]

If you are interested in buying a single issue, I think it is £2.95 in the UK.

For subscription: https://subs.timeinc.net/TA/ta_nb05chrgterm.jhtml?experience_id=87580&COUNTRY=ENGLAND&source_id=1&_requestid=162334

However, like Virgil has suggested, you can read it online as well.

Hey, your university library might have a copy too!

[Nightshade]

huh, when I figure that place out I might try in the meantime it just gives me a headache.

[Niamh]

We subscribe to TIME so get it delivered to our door with our mail weekly but I am sure European edition would be available at big bookstores and newsagents (maybe at WHSmith?). The good thing with the subscription is that you receive it before it hits the news stands.

Yeah irts available in book shops in europe. We have it in Hughes and Hughes here in ireland (Airport shops only) and Easons. but i'm sure you can get it in WhSmith in britain. Any shop that sells mags should have it.

[Scheherazade]

huh, when I figure that place out I might try in the meantime it just gives me a headache.Hey, you are the librarian! ;)

[Psycheinaboat]

I agree with Virgil and Niamh about this whole Time POY thing. (And Virgil predicted we wouldn't agree. Pish, posh nonsense!)

[Virgil]

Oh wow. I'm surprised. :) We should set up a poll. Perhaps tomorrow I will try if I can figure it out.

[Lily Adams]

I agree with Virgil. Are they trying to suck up to us or something?

[Nightshade]

Hey, you are the librarian! ;)

not yet but Im one term closer :D :nod:.

[Koa]

Funny that of the 3 forums I frequent (:blush:) the only one where a polemic about this hasn't started is the Italian one. Maybe because we don't care that much what Time's purpose is, and because we don't take so much for granted that the internet revolution is so widespread (sure it is but not everybody cares). And because we like to have been 'united' through this means. Well sure we all do even here etc, but I don't know, I found a much lighter attitude towards this at that forum.

[Virgil]

I would like to start a lit net poll on whether you think Time made the correct choice for this year's Person f the Year. Does anyone know how I do that. I have never started a poll.

[Koa]

I would like to start a lit net poll on whether you think Time made the correct choice for this year's Person f the Year. Does anyone know how I do that. I have never started a poll.

Now you did :)