. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Nap Time!!!

Saturday, December 16, 2006
Yay! Finally some recognition

I'm Time's person of the year, and totally deserve it.

But seriously, dudes, that's just fucking lazy. "Well, we could choose a person of the year, but that's hard. Instead, let's just broaden the category to 'some people vaguely related to some activity that happened during the year and was important.' That'll be a worthwhile category." They did it with them whistleblower folks a few years back, too. And them rich folks last year. Maybe it's time to fire this selection committee. And it's not like they're trying to hide their incompetence:
"If you choose an individual, you have to justify how that person affected millions of people," said Richard Stengel, who took over as Time's managing editor earlier this year. "But if you choose millions of people, you don't have to justify it to anyone."
And boy, that's a weight off our shoulders. Plus, we won't have to deal with people bitching about how our pick was an unpopular dude:
And Stengel said if the magazine had decided to go with an individual, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was the likely choice. "It just felt to me a little off selecting him," Stengel said.
Well, look, if you folks don't have the stomach to actually pick a "person" for "Person of the Year," maybe you should just give it up. America will live on without you. Don't worry.

posted by Beetle Aurora Drake 12/16/2006 10:09:00 PM #
Comments (8)
. . .
Comments:
Dude, the Drudge headline was a bit surreal. At first it read: "It's You!" and then the thing about the Person of the Year.

I know that it's generalized and everything, but still... kind of weird being singled out like that. I'm glad I wasn't stoned or anything.
 
Gotta disagree with you on this one. I think that the point is to recognize major, history-altering events/trends and the people who help make it happen. Sometimes it's easy to pick figures that personify what they're trying to recognize: WW2 -> Hitler, Churchill, Stalin, FDR, etc. from 1938-1945, Civil Rights Movement -> MLK, 9/11 -> Rudy Giuliani (though some would say bin Laden would have been the better/non-PC choice). Other times, it's hard to pick a single figure: Jeff Bezos in 1999 during the dot-com bubble? I love Amazon.com, I admire Bezos, and I think that time period is historically significant, but no one person can really personify that era. An abstract such as "The Internet" or "Computer Geeks" would have been better.

How does this relate to the 2006 "Person of the Year"? That people from all walks of life, from all over the world, are producing so much content to share online is a new development that rivals the early days of the printing press in importance. Centuries from now, more people will benefit from the descendants of Blogger and YouTube than care about the historical War on Terror, just as we, today, enjoy the printed word but know next to nothing about the countless wars that occurred during Gutenberg's time. Time could have solely recognized the creators of YouTube, but, just like the Bezos pick, doing so wouldn't have been an accurate representation of the truly historical significance of a trend. Instead, they chose you, me, and the rest of us who participate in the online exchange in so many different ways. I would have expected this from Wired, but it's good to see a more mainstream publication finally recognize the new era that we have entered.
 
Meh, I don't consider "Person of the Year" to be a meaningful award at all, so I agree with you in a sense. I just wish they had the balls to call it "Major, History-Altering Event/Trend of the Year" if that's what they're recognizing.

(The verfication word here is "kkholes". Discuss.)
 
so you don't really give a shit about what you're blogging about, but it gives you an opportunity to pat yourself on the back and dish out some snark. got it.
 
Oh, Jesus, these people are hilarious. But yeah, good summary.
 
Shows how out of touch Time is. As popular as it is, how many people have *actually* heard of youTube? How many *actually* use it? Everyone has heard of myspace, but how many *actually* use it? The blogosphere explosion? How's that working out for Berkeley? At the very best, the "you" described in the article applies to a very, very small fraction of our people. Ironically, they're kinda like the "extrodinary" people Carlyle described.

My point is this article is at least 3 years premature. We can see the start of Web 2.0 wave now, but it hasn't changed life significantly, yet.

Should have been Ahmadinejad or Pelosi.
 
My parents have heard of YouTube. Millions of people use it. The top videos have millions of views, rivaling cable and broadcast networks. On the flip side, niche content is available like never before. MySpace: I don't use it, but I'm amazed at how many people actually do. Apparently, this is how bands and independent artists launch these days. Facebook: no need to add anything. And it seems like tons of people have LiveJournals, or Xangas, or other blogs. If you're 25 or under, it's a given that you use these sites to interact. This is just the beginning, but the beginning of something monumental.

I guess they could have waited a few years, but it's really great that they chose to recognize this major paradigm shift in human production and consumption. Honestly, Ahmadinejad and Pelosi are just fucking politicians who will probably fuck things up like every other politician throughout history. Every now and then, it's nice to recognize the things that will forever alter society for the better.
 
WE HAVE ARWICK BALDWIN!!
 
Post a Comment


. . .