http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/times-person-of-the-year_b_34025.html
I'm taking part in a panel on Tuesday, hosted by TIME, that will be debating who should be the magazine's 2006 "Person of the Year."
...According to TIME, the Person of the Year is the person who "most affected the news and our lives this year, for good or for ill." With that in mind, here are my other-than-Murtha picks:
North Korea's Kim Jong Il, Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Hezzbolah's Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah (aka The Axis of Evil v. 2.0): For joining the nuclear club without an invitation (Kim). For calling "Nuclear Next!" (Ahmadinejad). For adding "Katyusha" to the list of vocabulary words we'd rather not know (Nasrallah). For making Mel Gibson look like a Zionist in comparison (Ahmadinehjad and Nasrallah). For bringing the world that much closer to apocalypse (all three).
Al Gore: For telling the truth about climate change, no matter how inconvenient. For kneecapping Fitzgerald's ridiculous notion that there are no second acts in American life. For making PowerPoint cool.
Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert: For providing punchlines with a purpose. For holding our leaders' feet to the fire -- and turning up the gas. For "truthiness," "godless sodomites," "Dead to Me" and "Mess o' Potamia." For proving that great satire can be a weapon of mass illumination.
Dr. A. Q. Khan: For being the Johnny Appleseed of nuclear technology. For making very big bucks selling the promise of very big bangs to very bad people. His radioactive seeds are now sprouting in North Korea and Iran, profoundly destabilizing the world.
Warren Buffet: For becoming the poster child for mega-philanthropy by pledging to donate 85 percent of his $44 billion fortune to charity -- the largest such donation in U.S. history. For showing that his nickname, the "Sage of Omaha," wasn't just about picking hot stocks.
Dick Cheney: For turning the affable, bipartisan, uniter-not-a-divider Governor W of Texas into the fanatical, with-us-or-against-us POTUS 43. For never failing to see the dark side of things -- except when it comes to Iraq. For providing endless fodder for news shows, bloggers, and comics by shooting his friend in the face. For refusing to do the right thing and follow his pal Rummy out the door.
YouTube: For making it possible to see everything we want to see, when we want to see it (what would the year have been like without Lonelygirl15, all those exploding Mentos-and-Coke videos, or being able to watch Jim Nabors sing the Beatles with Leslie Uggams?). For changing the political landscape by making it clear to politicians: do or say something unintentionally revealing and you'll be on YouTube in no time flat. For helping turn George Allen's presidential aspirations and Senate career into a huge pile of Macaca.
The Black Eyed Peas' Fergie: For torturing us with moronic, double-entendre-laden songs that we just couldn't get out of our heads. "My Humps" and "London Bridge" should be against the Geneva Conventions.
- - -
^ the 3 bolded choices are what I would call my own "short list". And although 2 out of 3 of them are positive "persons", isn't it interesting that the third is described in a very Palpatine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palpatine#Palpatine_in_mass_media)-like way? :o
No one really stands out this year for me.
Based on the stated "goal" of the Time Magazine honor, who/what would you put on your own personal shortlist? I guess that's the question I'm asking... But if you don't visit the Google News main page, watch The Daily Show/Colbert/Bill Maher that much, then I suppose it wouldn't seem like much of significance has happened over the last year that would make you care... Is that what you're saying? (I hope that came out right...)
What about Me? Can I be Time's Person of the Year? I mean look at all the great stuff I've done :P
Oh I think you got me wrong, i follow world events with an extremely neutral view.
Stewart/Colbert/Maher do a good job of spewing anti-republican anti-GWB banter (i subscribe to RSS that gets me their latest episodes the morning after they air); I'm interested to see how things change when the Democrats win in 2 years and their GWB whipping boy is no longer in power.
Warren Buffet's donation stands out as the single biggest solo act performed this year in my mind.
Well they gave it to GWB twice 2000, 2004, so heck i guess Melbosa is probably in the running.
Quote from: Shayne on November 22, 2006, 12:04:41 PM
Well they gave it to GWB twice 2000, 2004, so heck i guess Melbosa is probably in the running.
Thanks :D
"the individual or group of individuals who have had the biggest effect on the year's news" as the criteria though would have to make Kim Jong the obvious choice I think, but TIME has really backed away from using controversial people.
Quote from: Melbosa on November 22, 2006, 11:57:26 AM
What about Me? Can I be Time's Person of the Year? I mean look at all the great stuff I've done :P
Sure. "
most affected the news and our lives this year, for good or for ill" -- it sez "our" lives, but doesn't include the context of the community being described as "our" :)
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html
"You", interesting. A nod to things like YouTube, MySpace, Wikipeida where the Internet's users are directing the Information Age.
Quote from: Shayne on December 17, 2006, 01:33:58 PM
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html
"You", interesting. A nod to things like YouTube, MySpace, Wikipeida where the Internet's users are directing the Information Age.
"Cover Story: Person of the Year: You Yes, you.
You control the Information Age. Welcome to your world."
Okay, then why can't I correct the "foxnews.com" website when I want? ;)
"
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.
"
:)
Meh, I would rather know more about a person. This whole group of people thing sucks.. Even if the person was less involved than a group, I would rather know about a special individual than a nameless mass.
Time hasn't picked anyone controversial in a while (unless you count GWB), I agree with you Lazy, I would have liked to have seen it be somebody interesting then get the 5 page article of that person, instead I get a bunch of information about websites and technology that I am already intimately familiar with.
Quote from: Shayne on December 18, 2006, 11:16:59 AM
Time hasn't picked anyone controversial in a while (unless you count GWB), I agree with you Lazy, I would have liked to have seen it be somebody interesting then get the 5 page article of that person, instead I get a bunch of information about websites and technology that I am already intimately familiar with.
Ya basically they are writing an article about what we, should already know.
Remember that a lot of "Time" magazine readers are techno-phobes, or at least on the low end of the techsavvometer. To me it's like a redemption of the reduction in "cred" that the I.T. industry received from Y2K (i.e. the success of programmers in preventing major problems = most non-IT folks thinking/saying "what a waste of money, nothing happened, it was all hype!")
Quote from: Darren Dirt on December 18, 2006, 12:12:41 PMRemember that a lot of "Time" magazine readers are techno-phobes, or at least on the low end of the techsavvometer.
Source?
Just read some of the letters to the editor ;)
And I said "a lot" as a guesstimate... But considering how many other non-mainstream media choices there are nowadays for technoPHILES, I think that's a pretty reasonable statement.
A rather large generalization with no source. 79.23214% of statistics are made up on the fly.
Sorry, I am not the VP in charge of demographics for Time Magazine. I just used some basic logic and considered the current era of information ubiquitousness, the choices available to the techno-phile that extend beyond the glossy paper that comes out once a week and is 40 pages of ads+generalizedstories. How about you talk to a dozen of your buddies who are technology-literate, and ask how often they read Time magazine (i.e. beyond just following a link to Time.com and skimming the "Cover Story" -- which I just did today, but very rarely do on my own, which is the case, I presume, for most I.T. professionals and hardcore gamers and even I.T. managers -- sorry, there's me being presumptuous again :p ).
Seriously, though, anyone with an interest in learning about technology has a *lot* of choices that are deeper and more specific than "Time". There's a reason that Time magazine has so many ads, and has endured for so many decades... cuz it offers information that is both timely and interesting and general-interest, i.e. *accessible to the mainstream masses*.
Time's audience will, by logical deduction, have a higher percentage of non-techies than, say, Wired (which also still survives for the same reasons ... only it appeals to a very focused niche market, as does say "Scientific American", which I think it's safe to say has less techno-phobes as its regular readers).
For argument's sake, what would you say would be a fair single-question-poll that Time could ask of its readers to determine their level of technology awareness?
How long have you had e-mail?
- More than 10 years
- More than 5 years
- Within 5 years
- Within 1 year
- I don't have e-mail
People who fall into one of those responses immediately tell you something about how savvy they are with
information technology. They might be smarter or dumber than average, but in the realm of IT you'll be able to guess where they sit. At least, that's what I think.
Good question, except for the problem of workplaces with email imposed on those who otherwise abhor e-tech.
I would also presume a question re. the total # of "portable electronic devices" (including PDAs, cell phones, and Gameboy/PSP/-other-) would be helpful, yet the overall openness to and awareness of technological developments is what I would really wonder how to quantify -- which is I guess the challenge I am posing to shayne. (Again, seriously.)
IMHO, most people learned of Youtube (for example) through a linked video someone sent them (or an embedded video on a blog or similar), at which point they said "cool video dump site, I like the 'related videos' functionality, aw MAN I am so addicted now!" whereas those outside a circle of techno-friends might have had their first exposure to YT in a brief and shallow CNN report, or perhaps a Magazine Article. :)
I would be VERY surprised if the average web surfer doesn't know what YouTube and/or Wikipedia are. So its not like anyone is truly being enlightened by printing an article about what they already know about (as Lazy and I said) or a rough idea. Its like an issue stating the obvious.
I hate citing Alexa as we all know its basically irrelevant but for arguments sake:
Wikipedia: #12
YouTube: #6
...to say that the 12th and 6th most visited websites are unknown to all but the most tech savvy is a little ridiculous.
I would agree that most people got a YouTube link in their email and discovered it through a third party. Thats how I came across it. I then sent a few links to videos to my sister and my parents ... so that would make them tech savvy by your out of the blue generalizations.
Good information, thanks for that.
And so we come full circle to what motivated my post: you and Lazy seemed to say the POTY covers something that we "should" already know about. "We" is obviously the RW regulars, but all I was focusing on is that there may be a lot of "they" folks who are not as aware as "we" are, and so although I feel they "should" already know about certain web resources since they are extremely ubiquitous in all sorts of media over the past 18 months or so, obviously Time magazine feels there is such significance to them that they overlooked politicians and musicians and businessmen in favour of these "everybody knows about..." entities.
I don't think there's anything else to "debate". (Although I am still curious what you, Shayne, would ask the Time readers to quantify their tech knowledge/comfort level.)
As I would like you to show me how they are not tech savvy.
"We" as in "You" the time person of the year, not "We" as in RW.
Quote from: Shayne on December 18, 2006, 04:28:43 PM
As I would like you to show me how they are not tech savvy.
I already did -- an occasional sampling from the Letters To The Editor (sorry, I don't have specific dates and excerpts off hand) and also my own extending of some basic facts re. the availability of information, the type of audience that would find other sources besides Time in which to spend their reading time, and most of all the fact that they chose that as their POTY even if, as you claim, "everybody knows" all about that stuff... :p
Also bear in mind I thanked you for your information and your opinion, and I never denied that my presumption was exactly that -- presumptuous -- but also I explained my "logic" and so I unilaterally halt this circle-running exercise with an apology if there is some confusion as to a "burden of proof" in this whole non-issue. ("Caring Tank" is pretty much running on empty.)
Quote from: Shayne on December 18, 2006, 04:28:43 PM
"We" as in "You" the time person of the year, not "We" as in RW.
Are you as in you speaking for just you, or for you and Lazy? ;)
I would say the logic is almost the same as time writing about Bush then giving him the only copy. I am not sure how much he would get out if it.
Same goes for if they are reporting about "YOU", why do I care, I know what I did this year. I did a lot of surfing which may have made some sites popular by being a member. However I find the interest and importance of this fact almost non existent. I say the issue is a cop out from having to write about someone that might have stirred up the masses.
Looking back at the suggestions from the article I would have to say Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert would have been an awesome choice.
QuoteJon Stewart and Stephen Colbert: For providing punchlines with a purpose. For holding our leaders' feet to the fire -- and turning up the gas. For "truthiness," "godless sodomites," "Dead to Me" and "Mess o' Potamia." For proving that great satire can be a weapon of mass illumination.
Quote from: Lazybones on December 18, 2006, 04:48:10 PM
I say the issue is a cop out from having to write about someone that might have stirred up the masses.
Interesting, and IMHO quite plausible, theory. But I am sure that Shayne will ask you for facts to back up your opinion. ;)
Seriously though, I believe they had a good idea but perhaps packaged it poorly. They wanted folks to be awestruck and excited about how "collaborative" the 'Net has ("suddenly") become. Most of us here are a few years ahead of the pack when it comes to the leaps and bounds of improvement the net technology has undergone. But I guess the Time folks were thinking a lot of their readers still think of the web as only a place where pocket protector wearing programming geeks go to hang, or something. ::)
Quote from: Lazybones on December 18, 2006, 04:51:52 PM
Looking back at the suggestions from the article I would have to say Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert would have been an awesome choice.
QuoteJon Stewart and Stephen Colbert: For providing punchlines with a purpose. For holding our leaders' feet to the fire -- and turning up the gas. For "truthiness," "godless sodomites," "Dead to Me" and "Mess o' Potamia." For proving that great satire can be a weapon of mass illumination.
Agreed, and perhaps collecting a few political satirists together (i.e. The Daily Show + Colbert Report + Bill Maher's show (whatever it's called this year ;) ) ) would have been a great thing to focus on -- nay, *celebrate*. But instead of the messengers, or even the message, they chose to home in on the medium. ::)
Quote from: Darren Dirt on December 18, 2006, 04:52:15 PM
But I guess the Time folks were thinking a lot of their readers still think of the web as only a place where pocket protector wearing programming geeks go to hang, or something. ::)
I thought the net was mainly thought of as a place where adults surf for porn, teens post there entire lives on MySpace or Facebook, and nerds waste company time posting on forums and reading technews.
Well that is how I view the net...
So people who read books and magazines are not tech savvy. Interesting.
I would guess (no sources, just opinion, not even "letters to the editor for which i don't know the date") that the demographic for Time magazine is of a lot higher IQ level then that of say "People" or "National Enquirer". These people would probably know a little bit about "what the internet is" and "how do i check my email". Just my opinion.
I'm not changing my stance on that this issue of Time and the choice of subject for "Person of the Year" is a total cop-out and a waste of an "person". I'm not sure that "Jody's MySpace Page" or a "video of a guy getting kicked in the face accidentally while riding a jet powered skateboard" has effected the world other then being a rather large money sink. (cant include wikipedia in this as its been around for many a year)
To each there own I suppose. I would have preferred John Stewart and Steve Colbert as they have made the 18-35 demographic interested in the news and current affairs. An actual world changing "event" as opposed to well "wasting idle time" websites.
Long story short (IMHO)... Time is all like "2006 was the year where the 2-way-interactive Wikipedia effect' Internets hit the mainstream."
That's what I suspect led them to choose that over other more noteable events/event-causers. i.e. "instead of the messengers, or even the message, they chose to home in on the medium." ::)
I can't deny that, could also be the doorstep to the second tech bubble burst.
People Who Mattered: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1570714,00.html) (Time magazine interviews the young POI)
I guess he wasn't "k001" enough to beat Youtube etc. ... I guess you consider him as making the "runner up" list?