“The American Soldier” has been named Time magazine’sPerson of the Year for 2003.
Now the debate is: Do you think this should have gone to Saddam (or someone else)? I mean, to choose “The American Soldier” as Person of the Year is pretty safe, compared to Saddam as a choice. Do you think Time passed over Saddam, because of his current standing with Americans? Kinda like Osama with the 2001 Person of the Year.
I thought it was kinda neat of time magazine to do this. Normally the person of the year , is one who is in the news for the majority of the year. Which is why its personally had Adolf Hitler , Ayatollah Homeini , Col. Kadafi and a boat load of other news worthy peeps.
For the American Soldier to be placed in the category is pretty amazing , as its not one particular individual , and not the army thats being profiled.
Declan
Well Time is known for doing just that. In 1988 the winner was the “Endangered Earth”, in 1982 it was “The computer”, and in 1950 it was the “American fighting-man”.
I guess the problem with making Hussein the person of the year is that he didn’t really do anything to merit it this year. I mean, there was nothing he did this year to start the war and nothing he could have done to stop it, so why would he deserve it?
I support our troops as much as the next guy, but picking a nameless class of people as “Person of the Year” is a cop-out to avoid making a controversial selection. I can see the winner next year being “The American Voter”, or some such lame nonsense.
True, maybe WMD should be the winner. Heheh.
Well, they tried, but they couldn’t find any to interview…
Maybe they should have contributed honour to all those innocent men women and children killed by those soldiers.
You know… that “colateral damage” that isn’t even worht to be counted by the criminal invaders of Iraq.
But I suppose that wouldn’t land very well on the public.
Salaam. A
Well, Aldebaran, Person of the Year isn’t an award used to honor people necessarily - even though that’s what it sounds like. It just goes to the person or thing that most influenced events during the year, “for better or for worse.”
Neurotik, while that is the company line, of late I suspect they won’t make the tough call. I think Time has lost a lot of its bravery.
Otherwise OBL would have been Person of the Year in 2001 and Hitler would have been Person of the Century. Both had the largest effect on the time periods.
Besides, I HATE these generic picks (I know they’ve been doing this for decades!) Have some guts and pick ONE PERSON! Or at the very least, a small or identifiable class (the “Whisteblowers” a few years back was borderline).
I am not sure Sadaam would have been the pick this year. I think it was really Bush. It was his year, like him or hate him, and he was THE story.
Howard Dean, Au-nuld, and the Democratic Presidential Candidates would have been interesting picks.
For those interested, here was our midseason prediction thread.
Neurotik, Yes I know that. The more they should have attributed it to those thousands of victims who at the order of the invading nation remain “uncounted for” and thus in fact nameless.
Except for those who mourn over them, because their death had the greatest impact on their lives and their world then any impact can ever have.
You know, those who are said to be “worth the effort” (???)
I’m sorry, but I can’t see how US soldiers can have had the same impact if not for causing these deaths, who are arrogantly considered to be “colateral damage” and “worht the effort” and then aren’t even oficially reported because that could damage the US in its PR. business selling this invasion to the US public.
Salaam. A
They also could have named all the UN members who opposed this criminal invasion.
That would have been a far better choice then rewarding the actual invadors.
Salaam. A
In the category of the person who had the most influence on the news, the real winner of the Man of the Year award should have been George W. Bush … but for all the wrong reasons.
The American Soldier, while laudable, is a copout by Time. Which isn’t to say it’s the first time they’ve chicked out – picking Rudolph Giuliani as the MotY for 2001 was another recent weak choice, IMO.
He’d be a winner twice then, both ‘for all the wrong reasons’.
Anyone know who owns Time, and is there a reason why this award is anything other than cheap publicity for the magazine ?
The american public loves a little flag waving… and by “honoring” the soldiers you basically satisfy the bush lovers, those who don’t love him but respect the troops, etc… basically a good majority.
I do agree with the comments that it was a "easy way out" though. I don't like it much when a "for the wrong reasons" makes the cover.
They could have put Sergio Vieira de Mello… that would have been a nice choice. (Yep this is my very biased opinion… hehe )
Time used to be a fairly respected newsmagazine, but they’ve been pretty subservient to the current administration and public opinion since the 2000 elections (bin Laden should most definitely have been Man of the Year in 2001, by their definition of the criteria for the award). I kind of feel that they’ve lost some of my respect in the last three years.
To all those who picked bin laden:
If America never recovered from 9/11, Osama would have been a Man for All Time, for toppling two superpowers in the name of Islam. America not only recovered, the troops took over Afghanistan, forcing Osama on the run. Giuliani embodied the leadership during the recovery effort. Bush and Cheyney only followed.
This was during the same year in which he was forced out of a showdown vs. Hilary Clinton because of both multiple police shooting incidents and an extramarital affair he had, and on top of receiving cancer treatments. Giuliani was, positively and negatively, in the news all year round, while Osama was news mainly because of one day. Giuliani had possibly one of the the worst years and worst day any mayor of a major city would have, yet because of him and the city workers and volunteers who came out to help, America recovered
Come on capacitor, Osama was the 2001 news story. Not just for the US, but also world round. No one came close to topping him that year certainly not Giuliani. Also if he came in too late in the year for 2001, why didn’t he win the 2002 award?
It’s clear that Time just didn’t want the hassle, so they took the easy way out (It’s not horrible just lazy). I think they should just rename the award to “Top news story of the year” or “Top news subject of the year”. It might clear things up.
But then the question becomes “Who?”
I watch the news, I read the papers, I read news periodicals, I read the straight dope.
That name is not familar to me. Nor to a lot of other people I suspect. One of the points of the “man of the year” is to recognize those who have made a lot of news.