Betsy's Page

Wednesday, December 20, 2006

Speaking as the Person of the Year

I thought that Time's copout on choosing all of us as their People of the Year because we use the internet was incredibly lame. But their choices usually are. I didn't think that there was one individual who stood out as the POY. The big story was the Democrats taking the Congress but there wasn't one individual who stood out as the conductor of that victory - it was more the Republicans who tossed away their majority.

So, without a politician or world leader to choose, I would have also gone the technological route and picked Larry Page and Sergey Brin, the founders of Google. I use Google about a dozen times a day for the blog and for my teaching plus just for the fun of it. It's changed how we use the Internet. It's allowed US to be the way we are that made Time choose us.

Jonah Goldberg laments the inability of Time's editors to go ahead and choose a villain as POY just as they did when they picked Hitler, Stalin, and Khomeini. There was a time when we could live with the idea of a bad guy being the person who had the most impact on the news that year, but that doesn't fit in with our feel-good era.
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.
Meanwhile, you can read NRO's symposium on Time's choice. The one thing Time has going for it is that they've united all of us people of the year in derision at their magazine.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 7:22 AM 0 comments

Comments:

I thought that Time's copout on choosing all of us as their People of the Year because we use the internet was incredibly lame. But their choices usually are. I didn't think that there was one individual who stood out as the POY. The big story was the Democrats taking the Congress but there wasn't one individual who stood out as the conductor of that victory - it was more the Republicans who tossed away their majority.

So, without a politician or world leader to choose, I would have also gone the technological route and picked Larry Page and Sergey Brin, the founders of Google. I use Google about a dozen times a day for the blog and for my teaching plus just for the fun of it. It's changed how we use the Internet. It's allowed US to be the way we are that made Time choose us.

Jonah Goldberg laments the inability of Time's editors to go ahead and choose a villain as POY just as they did when they picked Hitler, Stalin, and Khomeini. There was a time when we could live with the idea of a bad guy being the person who had the most impact on the news that year, but that doesn't fit in with our feel-good era.

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.

Meanwhile, you can read NRO's symposium on Time's choice. The one thing Time has going for it is that they've united all of us people of the year in derision at their magazine.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 7:22 AM 0 comments

Comments: Post a Comment

The truth about Avesil

Cheap Hosting

Atlanta Bankruptcy Attorney

Dallas Bankruptcy Attorney

Wikio

Get exclusive travel deals and book discount cheap flights

Online Bachelors Degree

Wednesday, December 20, 2006

Speaking as the Person of the Year

		Betsy's Page

HOME Betsy neither necessarily uses, nor endorses, the products advertised on this site. The truth about Avesil Cheap Hosting Atlanta Bankruptcy Attorney Dallas Bankruptcy Attorney Wikio Get exclusive travel deals and book discount cheap flights Online Bachelors Degree Comments from an AP history and government teacher in Raleigh, NC. e-mail betsynewmark AT gmail.com Commissions earned from selling items through Amazon will go towards buying materials for my classes. Thank you. Site Feed		Wednesday, December 20, 2006 Speaking as the Person of the Year I thought that Time's copout on choosing all of us as their People of the Year because we use the internet was incredibly lame. But their choices usually are. I didn't think that there was one individual who stood out as the POY. The big story was the Democrats taking the Congress but there wasn't one individual who stood out as the conductor of that victory - it was more the Republicans who tossed away their majority. So, without a politician or world leader to choose, I would have also gone the technological route and picked Larry Page and Sergey Brin, the founders of Google. I use Google about a dozen times a day for the blog and for my teaching plus just for the fun of it. It's changed how we use the Internet. It's allowed US to be the way we are that made Time choose us. Jonah Goldberg laments the inability of Time's editors to go ahead and choose a villain as POY just as they did when they picked Hitler, Stalin, and Khomeini. There was a time when we could live with the idea of a bad guy being the person who had the most impact on the news that year, but that doesn't fit in with our feel-good era. 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. Meanwhile, you can read NRO's symposium on Time's choice. The one thing Time has going for it is that they've united all of us people of the year in derision at their magazine. posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 7:22 AM 0 comments Comments: I thought that Time's copout on choosing all of us as their People of the Year because we use the internet was incredibly lame. But their choices usually are. I didn't think that there was one individual who stood out as the POY. The big story was the Democrats taking the Congress but there wasn't one individual who stood out as the conductor of that victory - it was more the Republicans who tossed away their majority. So, without a politician or world leader to choose, I would have also gone the technological route and picked Larry Page and Sergey Brin, the founders of Google. I use Google about a dozen times a day for the blog and for my teaching plus just for the fun of it. It's changed how we use the Internet. It's allowed US to be the way we are that made Time choose us. Jonah Goldberg laments the inability of Time's editors to go ahead and choose a villain as POY just as they did when they picked Hitler, Stalin, and Khomeini. There was a time when we could live with the idea of a bad guy being the person who had the most impact on the news that year, but that doesn't fit in with our feel-good era. 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. Meanwhile, you can read NRO's symposium on Time's choice. The one thing Time has going for it is that they've united all of us people of the year in derision at their magazine. posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 7:22 AM 0 comments Comments: Post a Comment