Time magazine has an online poll to get an unscientific idea of how their annual Person of the Year should be. It breaks down into American Republicans (President Bush, Secretary of State Rice), American Democrats (Nancy Pelosi, Al Gore), the Axis of Evil (Kim Jong Il, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and unofficial new member Hugo "Bush Is Satan" Chavez), and just to be trendy, the "YouTube Guys."
As of Friday morning, it seems the Time crowd understands that this isn't a popularity contest as much as a measure of who made the most waves in 2006: Ahmadinejad is ahead with 32 percent, and the YouTube Guys are far behind at 15 percent; Bush is at 13, Pelosi at 12, Al Gore at 11, and Rice at 8.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Time
November 24, 2006 - 11:41 ET by iveseenitall"Person of the Year" Wow! Time Magazine-- Fewer and fewer people give a #$!& about their liberal nonsense.
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
i've seen it--couldn't agree
November 24, 2006 - 12:24 ET by ncstevemi've seen it--couldn't agree with you more. Time and Newsweek are irrelevent today. They offer week old 'news' in the day of instantaneous news. Has anyone seen the page counts of these rags lately?
Newspapers are suffering from the same obsolescence. At least their 'news' is only 12-24 hours old. The demographics of the subscription base for newspapers and news magazines is heavily weighted to the 50 & over crowd.
I have been saying the last couple of years that these dinosaurs will be gone in 15-20 years. I think I'm being too generous with their longevity. I think you'll begin to see newspapers fold in about 10 years. The cost of producing a newspaper will become prohibitive as more & more people turn to on-line news which is much less expensive to produce.
The sooner they're gone, the better. Couldn't happen to a nicer crowd.
Does anyone on here know if the news divisions of ABC, NBC & CBS are money makers or money losers? I thought I heard several times that these entities have been money pits for their owners for years and continue to be to this day. If that's the case, I'm sure their time is limited also.
If the papers stopped carryin
November 24, 2006 - 21:08 ET by GritsIf the papers stopped carrying horoscopes, comics, crosswords and obits, they would be dead tomorrow. Those are the only parts of most newspapers that can be depended upon to be entertaining, useful or true.
Grits
Trying once again to draw in
November 24, 2006 - 13:43 ET by Airforce_5_OTrying once again to draw in more readers, Time magazine proves nobody of common sense gives a rats a$$,
The new world order is in power. God help us all. Airforce_5_O, 2330, November 7, 2006
Everyone should go to the s
November 24, 2006 - 15:14 ET by Warner Todd HustonEveryone should go to the site and vote Bush, then clear their cookies and vote again, and again.
It'll drive them nuts.
I would but it makes me feel
November 24, 2006 - 16:04 ET by Andrew H.I would but it makes me feel like I need a bath.
Never relent.
TIME: more hyperbole than content
November 24, 2006 - 16:32 ET by PlaceboFrankly, who gives a damn about Time’s person of the year? I believe Hitler made man of the year, so it’s a wide open field. More hyperbole than content, Times is very adept at the former.
Times Man of the Year in bygone days had some prestige about it.
November 24, 2006 - 16:49 ET by tumblerTimes Man Of the Year had some prestige about it in bygone days. Mahatma Gandhi, Pope Pius, Einstein, Shostakovich, gave it panache. It's mostly a farce today.
nothing to gain
November 24, 2006 - 16:32 ET by tumblerIf this were worth having Bush acknowledged on a Time cover, I'd try it. Knowing the mean-spirited crap they'd unload behind the picture, why offer that publisher another avenue of attack? Phooey on Time.
Standing at a checkout this morning, I saw People Mag, with cover boy George Clooney; the caption in bold letters: "Sexiest man alive."
First of all, People has never even SEEN all the men alive; and not even all American men alive. How does that caption apply to Clooney? His caption ought to say: "Dumbest Man Alive." That would speak volumes. These highly-overcompensated writers are hired to make absurd statements nobody could possibly believe-- all they are is another symptom of society's never-ending hip bullshit. And it costs real money to buy their "appraisals" of the state of any "art". Bush is much better off without Time magazine, IMHO.
I'm surprised they left one
November 24, 2006 - 17:57 ET by bigtimerI'm surprised they left one their hero's 'Joe Blow Wilson/Valerie' off the list...
My how soon they forget...intentionally.
Armitage barely got a mention....lol!
Hypocrisy at it's best with these rags...and the rags that write for them.
"Ahmadinejad is ahead wi
November 25, 2006 - 03:38 ET by Indiana Joe"Ahmadinejad is ahead with 32 percent, ..."
And THAT pretty much says it all about the relevance of Time's "Man of the Year." This is mere infamy. With this kind of mind-set, Al Capone could have won in the '30s.
As noted above, and agreed to here, there was a time when such a mention was worthwhile. Now, it's just a big joke. On them. And they still think people care! Just another example of how completely out-of-touch "Time" is with most of the "real" world.
How can the same concept of what "Man of the Year" means possibly include both Mahatma Ghandi and Ahmadinejad?
Talk about your "polar opposites!"