Time is so disreputable of a magazine that I wouldn’t have been surprised if Jessica Lynch got the cover.
What was the impact that those foks had? Absolutely nothing*. Maybe I’d agree with you if they actually stopped the war, but they didn’t.
This is all about selling magazines. “The American Soldier” will do that. Cheap commercialism, but people will eat it up. It’s not like it has any real significance, so maybe that’s OK.
*which is also, BTW, what war is good for. Say it again!
It probably should have been Bush, simply for the historical significance of being a POTUS who lied his way into an illegal war. Like others have said, POTY is not supposed to be an honor, necessarily. Hitler was a former Man of the Year, for instance. W should have earned the distinction in that same vein.
“The American Soldier” really is just sentimentalist, pandering shit.
What about the UK soldiers, btw? Is their blood any less significant?
As to the actual OP, yeah, if this were really the person most influencing the world, it probably should be Saddam or Bush (ObL was the story in 2001/2002). I’m not sure we’ll see a reall baddy like Hitler on the cover again. Might be bad for sales.
Don’t blame me, though. I voted for Paris Hilton.
Why does there have to be some nefarious or cynical reason for this pick?
I think it’s a good choice, and correct. The American soldier has proven the utter military dominance of the U.S. They engaged and dismantled the military of a another large country in a matter of a few weeks, with almost no casualties, historically speaking.
And now, those same people are on the front line of an immensely important for our future.
They are symbolic of a sea change in world relations, as well.
HHhmmm... you must read more news then... he was the UN special envoy to Iraq that died when the compound was hit by a truck bomb. He is being considered for the posthumous Peace Nobel next year. (He is Brazilian like myself... hehe)
I agree with the "those who have made a lot of news"... which would have left him a weak candidate for man of the year.This was a sad year indeed… if they picked a different cover of “Asshole of the Year” there would be way too many candidates to be fair.
Paris Hilton?
I only managed to download the incomplete video… is the complete one that explicit ? :eek:
Her ex-boyfriend does deserve the title though for showing the video online…
Time is owned by Time-Warner/AOL, and the “Man of the Year” has always been a publicity gimmick. It gets press because it’s a long-running tradition.
That said, when done properly, the “Man of the year” can be an insightful look back at the news events of the past year (2002’s MotY went to three whistleblowers who revealed the flaws at Enron, Worldcom, and the CIA). But Time gets flak from some readers whenever they put a “bad” person as Man of the Year (“How dare you glorify Hitler by making him MotY!”), so there’s definitely a financial motive in picking easy choices.
Of course, if Time had picked George W. Bush as Man of the Year, all the Bushistas would have simply crowed that it was the smart choice, without actually reading the accompanying article… 
… more like “Monster of the Year” I would say.
I won't blame TIME for taking the easy way out... certainly I can't come up with a better idea for this year.They missed a better choice- Bartman! Without him, we would have had a Cubs-Yankees World Series.
Thanks all.
Well, if we’re playing the self-promotional game for Time/Warner.Inc, I would have thought a strong case could have been made for Uncle Dickie Cheney given this regional realignment cum ‘Isolationism: the Shock and Awe Edition’ is mostly his personal philosophy in action. IMHO, of course.
The fact that a lot of people are feeling all dewey eyed over it proves it worked as a sentimental marketing ploy.
Its about time.
About 2 years ago right after September 11th back when I was a cadet, a senior NCO instructor told my class:
“Just so you all know, I was at the store yesterday, and this lady comes up to me. She said how grateful she was of us. I said thank you mam and left. I know the day before September 11th she didn’t give a shit about us.”
It’s about time.
Why don’t they sell magazines by throwing everyone off… and vote a pop icon… hell a pop icon from the 50s. James Dean for MotY 2003, anyone?
Oh hell, why stop there? What about the officer (sorry for my lack of knowledge… yea i should know, but things like Time’s person of the year is all i see on biased fox news… which is all i get…) who saved how many men by shooting a gun in an interegation? So he got dishonorably discharged, he symbolized the backwardness in policies.
“Hell, you save some lives sir… but you violated policy by going above and beyond the call of duty!”
To me, that even symbolizes Times choice. They chose what would make people happy over what was right. They discharged him because it made alot of people happy… over what was right.
Am I wrong?
I’ll be grateful when I’m actually being protected from something. Since the invasion of Iraq serves no defensive purpose then no thanks is warranted.
I feel sorry for the poor bastards who got sent over there to get shot for no reason but it has nothing to do with protecting me.
You mean that gutless criminal scumbag who escaped his just punishment for his act cowardly act of terrorism?
I agree that the system didn’t work. He should have gone to Leavenworth.
HEY!.. he may be a gutless criminal scumbag… but he is AMERICAS gutless criminal scumbag!
Still… since i can not argue a point for I have no evidence… you yourself said the system didn’t work… LETS VOTE FOR THE SYSTEM AS THE PERSON OF THE YEAR… who ever the hell the system is you speak of!
Time’s “Man of the Year” edition always strikes me as being an event which created debate somewhat similar to “Did so and so deserve to win the Best Actor Oscar?” And why? Well, ultimately it’s a subjective decision - open to all sorts of commercial pressures.
Also, something to consider is that Time Magazine remains essentially an American based news magazine - although it has lots and lots of regional versions which offer slightly greater regional content. Still, it’s worth noting that what’s BIG NEWS within the USA doesn’t, by extension, mean that it’s also big news the rest of the world over.
In this context, I personally reckon Tony Blair was the man actually. Time after time, his articulate, forthright manner managed to redeem George W. Bush just when you thought the US President might have buried himself in a hole. And also, Tony Blair was in the news all year long as well. He played a pretty pivotal role in a lot of areas - inlcuding the recent Libyan WMD affair.
However, that being said, I think that the better vote might have been the “Coalition Soldier” - not just the “American Soldier” - insofar as an awful lot of British soldiers served, and we little Aussies managed to send every thing we could spare too.