Time Magazine's Person of the Year: You

Parent Cafe
1

<p>"Congratulations! You are the Time magazine “Person of the Year.” "</p>

<p>“The annual honor for 2006 went to each and every one of us, as Time cited the shift from institutions to individuals — citizens of the new digital democracy, as the magazine put it. The winners this year were anyone using or creating content on the World Wide Web.”</p>

<p>Congrats everyone!</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2006/12/16/national/a175700S26.DTL[/url]”>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2006/12/16/national/a175700S26.DTL&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

2

<p>Let’s all give ourselves a big round of applause!</p>

<p>Is this like one of those sports banquets where everyone gets a trophy? I know my self-esteem was just raised! Yessiree, I’m feeling pretty good about myself; must hit the mall and buy myself something to reward me for doing so good!</p>

3

<p>hit the mall? A true citizen of the new digital democracy would shop online garland!</p>

4

<p>this is so lame… haha</p>

5

<p>Very lame indeed. The only interesting question it raises is how many people globally, what percentage of total population, meet this broad criteria?</p>

6

<p>ebeee, Time says it’s all of us, and let’s face it, that’s where most of us spent this beautiful day, I bet.</p>

7

<p>Dumb. </p>

<p>(10 chars)</p>

8

<p>There was a great riff on this yesterday on NPR, by Bill Langworthy.</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6642874[/url]”>And the Winner of 'Person of the Year' Is... : NPR;

<p>I’m with garland. Who are we to criticize? POTY 'r us. That’s what I say. :)</p>

9

<p><a href=“http://arewelumberjacks.blogspot.com/2006/12/person-of-year.html[/url]”>http://arewelumberjacks.blogspot.com/2006/12/person-of-year.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>A cat in your underwear drawer…because we’ve done everything else.</p>

10

<p>Just in time for kids to add it to their list of awards on college apps!</p>

11

<p>Is there a cash award?</p>

12

<p>TIME has been very lackluster in naming People of the Year, lately. Instead of choosing someONE who has had a profound impact on society or even the world, they are choosing groups of people, which to me really takes away from the interest of the title. Gulliani and Bush I believe were men of the year at some point, and to me that is what we need, people. Not to diminish the American soldier or whistleblowers or us, these are effective because they act as a group. But what about the person, the individual. Thats what I would like to see more of.</p>

13

<p>Was it Guiliani and Bush? For some reason I thought the Man of the Year that year was Bush and Ben Laden. Maybe I’m losing my memory in my old age.</p>

14

<p>I dont think they were together. I am saying one year was Gulliani. The other year I believe was Bush, but it could have been Bin Laden.</p>

15

<p>The Iranian president would have been an excellent Time Man of the Year. So would have Hassan Nasrallah or even Vladimir Putin. What do you people think? Am I wrong in my analysis. Is “you” a good person of the year or is time magazine just slacking?</p>

16

<p>Hitler and Stalin(twice) were both named person of the year by Time too. What a great honor <em>rolls eyes</em></p>

17

<p>I do not think Time Man of the Year has to be the most noblest person, but just the one that has had the most impact. Hiter and Stalin sure had some impact. If you want to talk about hading out awards to bad guys, see noble peace price to career terrorist Arafat</p>

18

<p>Just checked the whole list, and in 2001 it was Giuliani. That was clearly a cop out, since the person who had the most impact, for good or for ill, was Ben Laden. Person of the Year is not supposed to be an honor, it’s supposed to be a recognition of impact, pure and simple. But people just don’t seem to accept that, and so I think Time felt they couldn’t name Ben Laden. </p>

<p>And speaking of cop outs, since 1993, “Person of the Year” has included American women (as a group), whisteblowers, the American soldier, and now “you”. If this is what they’re doing, why even bother?</p>

<p>They should go back and look at real impact after the fact. For instance, in 1953, they named Elizabeth II as person of the year (the year she ascended to the throne). But now, looking back, we would say it was the team of Watson & Criquie (sp?), who discovered the composition of DNA. And how about the person who invented the vacuum tube?</p>

19

<p>I hope everyone is so proud you are buying copies to show family and friends. :rolleyes: Seriously, this is idiotic. The media outdoing themselves in pandering. I guess we should be glad they didn’t pick Brangelina. </p>

<p>In the it-doesn’t-have-to-be-someone-admirable category, what about Rumsfeld?</p>