Time Magazine Person of the Year — It's You 244
Thib writes to point out that Time Magazine has picked you — or us, or the Internet — as Person of the Year because you control the Information Age. From the article: "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."
Lame. . . (Score:4, Interesting)
What does this say? (Score:3, Interesting)
Where there no great people this year? Did no one do anything that really stood out (or a series of events)?
Personaly I think that is true. We have no heros at the moment. There are no more (for the moment) world famus individuals that shape how we act/view the world. All we have are big names that the world looks at and wory about.
My realization on this came a few weeks ago when listening to some random news in the morning (NPR), and hearing a report reffer to Bush as "Mr. Bush" repeatedly. It sorta stuck in my head, it was the only time I can remember a reporter calling a sitting prez "Mr. *****" instead of "President *****", even when they were from the opposite side of the political fence (Fox to a dem, NPR to a Repub, etc).
As for picking internet culture instead?
Meh.
It hasn't changed much since last year. Bogs, web 2.0, what ever you wana focus on was all just as active last year as it was this year.
Re:What? (Score:5, Interesting)
Stupid Chrysler. Just ASSUMING that I wouldn't be the person of the year or something. Sheesh.
Daily Kos has a nice screen grab of the ad here [dailykos.com]
Re:Lame. . . (Score:2, Interesting)
Indeed. Time has repeatedly said that the "award" is about level of influence, and NOT a value judgement. Yet, Osama Bin Laden was rejected over Rudy Juliani. Time pussies!
Re:Lame. . . (Score:3, Interesting)
But because it came from friends and family, it came organically, people stopped to listen just a little bit longer than they might
Time's explaination for their decision, is that the new importance of communitity tools changes how change is made. In the future, it'll be rare, maybe even impossible for a future "Person of the Year" to have an impact without the assistance of this ethos.
I was thinking about who'd I pick. Howard Dean for his 50-state strategy, Rumsfeld for being the iconic figure at the hinge of the Iraqi occupation, or Jon Stewart/Stephen Colbert for reshaping how we look at current events.
But after I saw it, and read their argument. I was convinced.
Re:Person of the year isn't what it used to be (Score:3, Interesting)
They used to just give it to whoever was the most important person of that year or changed the world the most. In the past this has included people who changed the course of world history like Stalin and Hitler. These days they would never put someone like that up as their person of the year. They seem to be focused on picking a choice which is either feel good patriotic (like the president if it happens to be a year when his approval rating is high) or gimicky (like this) in the past decade or so. I
We saw this quite clearly in 1999/2000 when Time chose its "Person of the Century" -- not Hitler, Stalin, or Mao, but Albert Einstein. That issue then included a two-page essay full of incoherent waffling about why they didn't pick Hitler, Stalin, or Mao. But if you establish the basis of the award as "the individual who had the greatest influence on history, for good or ill," there's no rational way to exclude the world-class jerks.
Re:Hyped to the Nth degree (Score:3, Interesting)