Time Magazine has chickened out on this before, IIRC. In 2001, the Person of the Year arguably should have been Osama bin Laden, or the hijackers - nobody affected that year’s events more than they. But they decided to make Rudy Giuliani person of the year instead, even though his actions had lesser effect than the hijackers’ or bin Laden’s actions. (Understandable though, considering that Time Magazine itself is headquartered in downtown New York City and would probably have been ransacked had bin Laden been POY.)
I have to give it to Biden/Harris. Overthrew a wannabe dictator, made history for the first female vice president. Both deserving and they should share the honor.
In a normal year, yes. But this is a year of 60 million infected, over a million killed, and economic/global disruption that the world hasn’t seen in three generations. It’s got to be something virus-related.
You make a very good point. But there are two compelling stories: A presidential election that, if it went the other way, would have very likely destroyed democratic government, and a virus that has caused catastrophic world human and economic damage. I believe that one could make a strong case for either of these. An election that saved democracy vs a virus that threatened the world. Not an easy choice. I could not fault Time for picking the virus, but I think Biden/Harris is the better choice. The virus will be stopped by science, but Biden/Harris saved democracy.
Since Clinton, every President-elect has been Person of the Year. Will they break tradition now?
Count my prediction as another for the Essential Worker including Health Care.
I can’t fail to notice the sharp increase in frequency of identified-group or general collective awardees after the turn if this century – 8 out of 19, with two consecutives. (I make the distinction for those cases in which there is a specific group that is linked by deeds that influence, such as persecuted journalists, vs. those where it is just more of a generalized affinity but a majority are not involved such as “You”. Heck, I’d say “You” and “the Middle Americans” are more akin to abstract concepts) The next densest cluster thereof being the 1960s.
I also notice that in 1952, 60, 68 and 88 the new President-elect was not the awardee, so there’s precedent. Why break the post-Clinton pattern? Because it’s not a normal year.
This is my pick. If democracy fails, covid is a secondary issue.
All those people, doing their jobs, likely for low pay, to ensure that the people get to pick their leader, even when the current President is doing everything he can to bring their efforts into doubt…
Yay poll workers!
“The Essential Workers” has a lock on it, IMO.
How often has the presidential election winner not gotten it? Especially with their first term win?
The last time was 1988 when it was given to Planet of the Year
Bush won a sleeper of an election and perhaps got the shaft due to being Reagan’s third term as well as a campaign based on the Pledge of Allegiance and murderers on furlough.
Bush did win in 1990 for the first Gulf War
It looks like Time has ‘voting’ but it’s an awful slideshow and then it requires an email. Screw them
I don’t like “The Essential Workers”, because it’s way too broad. One thing this pandemic has taught us (rightly or wrongly) is just how many jobs are “essential”. Like, at the peak of the lockdown, when only “essential workers” were supposed to be working, I saw plenty of professionally-made signs saying “Thank you essential workers!”. So, I guess sign-makers are considered “essential”?
I would just assume they could take their work (and equipment) home with them.
I would have thought it was just printing presses that did newspapers (yes, some people read them) as well as other sign printing (Covid rules) and then also ran off other stuff when they has spare time
I’m going to throw another idea into the mix - Social Media User. While front-line essential workers have a strong case, I feel that Social Media has proven to have an outsized influence on world events, with particularly with the spread of dis-information.
I think Dr. Fauci would be a good pick. Selecting him covers the pandemic, the atrocious federal response to the pandemic, the battle between science and willfully ignorant people, and even the election. It would also be a jumping off point for the massive firing of anyone who contradicts the Asshole in Chief and the gutting of the federal agencies.
I find this very disturbing. That anyone and their dog can post something on Twitter and it can instantly create a furor all over the world, even if it is, or especially if it is, a lie.
I would HATE it if the Twitter logo bird were named <Thing> of the Year, but it might not be off base.
One of the movies I routinely watch over and over is All the President’s Men. Ben Bradlee wouldn’t print any of the news items that Woodstein brought him unless they were verified by three independent sources. We’ve strayed very far from those standards. It started (IMHO) when CNN created the 24/7 news cycle during the first Gulf War ~1990-ish. Getting the story first became more important than getting it right. Now with so many ways of spreading information, combined with the decline in teaching critical thinking in schools… slogging through the information cesspool to figure out what’s true is challenging.
I do think that one reason Trump managed to get the presidency while almost all newspapers endorsed Clinton was because many newspapers had the goods on Trump. But many times there were just one or two sources willing to confirm the huge misdeeds.
The only option then was to not endorse Trump in the opinion pages and only in a roundabout way tell the public what a horrid guy many were going to vote for.
So you’re saying Trump was elected because of the integrity of the press?
It will and should be either Biden or something related to Covid.
Biden won what is definitely an important election so it would normally be him. However Covid is the biggest global news story since the fall of Communism, possibly since WW2.
Ultimately the choice doesn’t matter much but the reports are often an interesting read given the resources and access that Time has. In terms of the stories I would like to read: it would probably be about the vaccine makers and the government programs like Warp Speed that funded them.
Generally speaking, at the same time some tabloid press like The National Inquirer spiked or hid the exclusives they got with women that had tales of affairs or worse with Trump.