Person of the Year 2006

Erik Bates | December 18, 2006
[hidden by request]

Jackie Mason | December 18, 2006
[hidden by request]

Amy Austin | December 19, 2006
Hyah, hyah! I'm going to go add my time-wasting activities to my resume in the form of TPOY 2006 right now... not. What a joke -- I believe it went down exactly as you said, Erik... except, I think it actually came after a solicited brain-storming session that probably started as far back as October. Right after the Macaca hit the fan and Foley trumped every other Republican scandal of the year... yes, that's when the bewildered folks at Time started turning and burning, doubtful that anyone would come up with the one person who could pull the year's collective head out of its ass -- but they did it! They gave props to US... (not the magazine)... the hard-working bloggers of America!!! (Oops, wait -- was that supposed to include everyone planet-wide... or only those of us with computers???) WOOHOO! I am so proud of everyone here... congratulations to all of you/us!!!

Ironic, isn't it... this is a blurb from last year's write-up/cover story on the selection of Bono & the Gates:

This was already a year that redefined generosity. Americans gave more money to tsunami relief, more than $1.6 billion, than to any overseas mission ever before. The Hurricane Season from Hell brought another outpouring of money and time and water bottles and socks and coats and offers of refuge, some $2.7 billion so far. The public failure of government to manage disaster became the political story of the year. But the private response of individuals, from every last lemonade stand to every mitten drive, is the human story of 2005.

Scott Hardie | December 23, 2006
I'm disappointed and frustrated with this year's selection of Person of the Year. It's not frustration with Time's editors, who have a magazine to sell and make blogs their big annual cover story so they can get free publicity when the blogosphere predictably goes nuts over it. It's not the selection of mere online time-wasters (well-put, Jackie) over much more meaningful 2006 figures like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hugo Chavez. And it's not really with the increasing gimmickry of Time's annual selections, which have seen only two actual, single individuals given the title in the last six years. No, in fact my frustration is that anybody actually takes this Person of the Year bullshit seriously when it's so plainly and obviously a publicity stunt (and a joke of one at that). Time's annual tradition would be journalistic fluff at best if it at least focused on its stated intentions in profiling the year's biggest newsmaker, but they can't even stick to that, making it a waste of time for everyone who has ever spent a few minutes discussing it, debating it online, or reading about it, including this paragraph.

Besides, I think Time is premature in citing the permanence of this trend. The direction of the web these days is towards user-generated content, which has certain advantages such as unbridled creativity, volume of information, and constant freshness. (And I admit, an entirely user-created GOO round looks increasingly appealing as my schedule keeps getting busier.) But there's a backlash coming, when people realize that the information provided by Wikipedia is not as reliable as that written by a professional researcher or biographer, news provided by biased bloggers doesn't compete with international journalistic organizations, and the silly home videos accessible on YouTube are not as good as works by professional filmmakers working in the industry. We got very excited over the last big trend of the web and bet the bank on it and then reality knocked us on our asses, and now we're about to do it again. There will always be a place for user-generated content, but don't expect it to replace the expertise of professionals in the long run.

And for the record, "You" will not be a celebrity goo, so don't even think about requesting it.

Scott Hardie | December 16, 2010
Is it me, does it feel like deja vu that Time selected Mark Zuckerberg as their 2010 Person of the Year?

- Once again, Time is hailing the personalization of the Internet as a major news trend. They already did that when they named "you" the "person" of the year in 2006, as we debated above.

- Once again, news organizations are falling over themselves to report this "news" that originated with a competitor trying to generate sales and ad impressions. I guess if it's good for the goose...

- Once again, the title is being mistaken as honorary when it's just about who's the biggest newsmaker. Really? There are still people who don't understand this?

I'm not as angry about it as I apparently was in 2006, but I am still annoyed at the breathless enthusiasm with which bored, desperate news outlets relay this attention-grabbing, debate-generating non-event. WHO TIME CHOOSES IS NOT NEWS. EVER. Ignoring it is not easy when it takes up such a share of the "news" for a few days after it happens. There are real things happening in the world that need more coverage, not this.

Jon Berry | December 16, 2010
I was somewhat peeved at their procedure for it. They had an online poll, where they stated that the editor would essentially choose whoever they wanted, and Zuckerberg was about 8th place on the poll.

It doesn't bother me they chose for themselves, but using a poll to hype up traffic and give the illusion that the reader's opinion matters only to have it be chosen automatically was kinda iffy.

It also seems outdated to put Zuckerberg, as much as I loved the Social Network that seems to be the only thing of relevance he influenced this year. The previous years Facebook was a much larger powerhouse.

But you are right, Scott, it's irrelevant and not news, I guess people were surprised because there have been so many influential individuals this year (in both positive and negative ways) that for Mark Zuckerberg to be picked gives off the impression that Time is a little behind in the times.

Samir Mehta | December 16, 2010
[hidden by request]

Amy Austin | December 16, 2010
The title has historically been "Man of the Year" and then, starting only in 1999, "Person of the Year" -- this is why it is thought of as an honor, as that very title connotes someone "worthy" of meritorious mention for their influence on the world... not merely the dubious distinction of being the hot topic of the year in the modern age of yellow journalism.

That said... even by the modern definition and application of the "award", Zuckerberg *is* old news (and recycled old news, at that). In addition to fueling a social ethics debate of much greater and more interesting import (at least to me), Assange actually did garner more votes in that poll... proving that while it might be a popularity contest of sorts, it's not necessarily among the readership. After the way our government, in typically ironic fashion, shamed Amazon and PayPal and those who followed suit into believing that no "respectable" business would give Mr. Assange and company the venue for his doings, his not being selected for this "honor" should come as no surprise.

Scott Hardie | December 17, 2010
As I understand it, there was some controversy in 2001 when they named Rudy Giuliani for his role in 9/11, when obviously Osama Bin Laden is a much more central figure... that is, while the magazine used to be serious enough to cast a villain as the person of the year, as they once did with Hitler during WWII, it is now afraid to alienate anyone. Or perhaps it is the readers who became less serious. Anyway, in this light, I can see their unwillingness to name Assange; good point, Amy.