Time's Person of the Year: who will it be?

[Shayne]

Remember that a lot of "Time" magazine readers are techno-phobes, or at least on the low end of the techsavvometer.

Source?

[Darren Dirt]

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.

[Shayne]

A rather large generalization with no source.  79.23214% of statistics are made up on the fly.

[Darren Dirt]

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?

[Mr. Analog]

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.

[Darren Dirt]

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.

[Shayne]

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. 

[Darren Dirt]

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.)

[Shayne]

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.

[Darren Dirt]

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.)

"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?

[Lazybones]

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.

[Lazybones]

Looking back at the suggestions from the article I would have to say Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert would have been an awesome choice.

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.

[Darren Dirt]

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.

Looking back at the suggestions from the article I would have to say Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert would have been an awesome choice.

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.

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.

[Lazybones]

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...

[Shayne]

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.