Time Magazine Person of the Yeargreenspun.com : LUSENET : Inertia Forum : One Thread
Yes? No? Why?
-- Paulineee (firstname.lastname@example.org), December 24, 2001
Personally, I think Rudy Guiliani is an excellent choice for "Person of the Year," and he is exactly who I was hoping would get the nod from Time Magazine. Prior to the events of September 11th, I didn't have much use for Mayor Guiliani. Sure, he did some good things for New York City, but something about him rubbed me the wrong way. My respect for him grew enormously after his vigilant support of NYC following the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center. I don't believe anyone could have handled the situation better than Rudy did. I really thought Bin Laden was going to be selected, and I understand that Time's Person of the Year is not a popularity contest. After all, Hitler was their choice in 1938. Still, it would have sickened me had Bin Laden been chosen. It is my opinion that Time Magazine made the right choice.
-- Stephanie (email@example.com), December 25, 2001.
Rudy has proved himself worthy. Knowing it is not a popularity choice I still did not want to see Osama there. Nor would I want to see Bush there. Didn't he make it once? I'm still waiting to see just exactly what he did for the common folk of TX.
-- Bonnie (firstname.lastname@example.org), December 25, 2001.
Yes. I was home during the attack and watched the television coverage continuously days. Even at the time, I commented that I was impressed that he made himself so visible. Certainly it would've been easy to just issue news releases, but he made sure the he was on the scene, and held the news conferences himself. That he made himself a constant focus on news and strength, was a great help to each individual.
Of course that's my opinion, but I can only say how his performance affected me personally. I don't know a lot about his politics, but I respect the man.
-- Rick Pali (email@example.com), December 26, 2001.
The man did a good job (I guess), but then that's what he is supposed to do. To me, being a cynical European ;-), chosing him looks more like a moral boost for NYC. Nothing wrong with boosting moral, but then I would have chosen somebody less obvious. A firefighter, for example.
But if you want to pick the *real* man of the year, it is of course Osama bin Laden. His name and the attack on the WTC will be remembered for many years to come, while in 2004 the ex-mayor will be known as Rudy Guilisomething.
-/|/- Rien http://rienz.net
-- Rien (firstname.lastname@example.org), December 26, 2001.
Perhaps my question should have been "Osama: yes or no?"
I can't argue with all the accolades heaped upon Guiliani. He appears to deserve all that and more.
Elect him Hero of the Year; elect him President; have the Queen (any queen) bestow Honorary Knighthood; even put him on the short list for Sainthood. No quarrel from me.
He did not fulfill the criteria for TIME MAGAZINE's Man of the Year:
"The person or persons who most affected the news of our lives, for good or ill, this year."
That should have been a no-brainer.
I will grant that Time was in a no-win situation and that whomever they picked (Guiliani or another hero) or Osama, a large portion of their readership and the general public would disagree with some vehemence.
In those circumstances, why not take the high road - that of journalistic integrity rather than succumbing to the emotional pressure of those who threatened to cancel their subscriptions if Time "honoured" the terrorist.
If the newspaper does not have the guts to stand behind the criteria that have guided this choice for over seventy years, they should not market themselves as a News vehicle.
Yes the people of the Western World need support and a feel-good message. This was not the place for it.
I'm not a subscriber to Time but if I were, I'd cancel now.
-- Pauline (email@example.com), December 26, 2001.
You would've *cancelled* your subscription? Let's not lose sight of things here. Time is a news magazine. We might disagree, but I see this whole 'Person of the Year' thing as little more than a publicity stunt to get some more time in other publications (in what ever media). Stopping reading the magazine on those grounds seems like throwing out the baby (and the rest of the bathroom) out with the bath water.
I'd read Macleans before Time anyway, so I ought to keep quiet. :-)
-- Rick Pali (firstname.lastname@example.org), December 27, 2001.
I'm sure many people think Mayor Giuliani did not meet the criteria for Time Magazine's Person of the Year, and I can understand their reasoning, but I disagree. Bin Laden affected the news of our lives for ill, while Giuliani affected the news of our lives for good. He rallied his city, inspiring New York to inspire the nation. He helped to restore confidence, courage, and hope, and guided us back to some semblance of normalcy, which was no small feat. As for Osama bin Laden "being remembered for many years to come, while in 2004 the ex- mayor will be known as Rudy Guilisomething," well, I don't believe that at all, but let's say it's true for argument's sake. This is "Person of the YEAR" we're talking about, not the Ages.
-- Stephanie (email@example.com), December 27, 2001.
Person of the Year IS a publicity thing, but an intriguing one.
I would cancel my subscription because I no longer trust the editor to make an honest decision. I truly believe his reasons had little to do with the actual criteria.
Guiliani fulfilled the criteria but Bin Laden fulfilled them better; if it weren't for him, Guiliani would still be a fading politician - because the circumstances that brought out his heroism would not have occurred.
It's not a good vs evil thing but a matter of degree.
Guiliani deserves heaps of accolades - but not this one, if it even is an accolade, which it's not supposed to be.
-- Pauline (firstname.lastname@example.org), December 27, 2001.
I believe Pauline's point is moot because the circumstances that brought out Giuliani's heroism DID occur, and he DID rise to the occasion in a most admirable way. Also, when she says: "It's not a good vs evil thing but a matter of degree," she is making reference to a private email in which I wrote: "I do understand your point. However, I maintain that Time Magazine DID follow the criteria, which, as you pointed out is: "The person or persons who most affected the news of our lives, for good or ill, this year." In my opinion, Osam bin Laden most affected the news of our lives this year for ill, and Mayor Giuliani most affected the news of our lives this year for good. So, the choice was good or bad, and I for one am very glad good won over evil." I think we all need to bear in mind that this forum is a vehicle for expressing OPINIONS. How can any of us possibly KNOW what factors led to the decision to make Rudy Giuliani Person of the Year? Sure, we can speculate. But, Time Magazine's explanation for their choice is good enough for me, and a good many other people. If they had chosen Bin Laden, I would have accepted that, too, even though I would have disagreed with it. Certainly, there are a variety of different opinions in this wide world of ours, and, while it is important that we stand by our convictions, it is also important that we leave room for alternative points of view.
-- Stephanie (email@example.com), December 28, 2001.
This is a submission to the forum from my friend Daniel whose computer, for reasons too arcane to mention, does not permit him to send postings of this length. I submit this without amendment or comment:
I don't quibble with the choice of Mayor Giuliani as Time's "Person Of The Year". An excellent case can be made for his selection as could be made for both Osama Bin Laden and George W. Bush. What I DO dispute are the comments in this forum which tend to dismiss Giuliani's historical significance PRIOR to September 11th. I maintain that had September 11th not occurred, Mayor Giuliani would STILL deserve to go down as one of the finest mayors in New York City history, if not the finest. Think back to 8 years ago and imagine someone telling you that New York City would soon be a safe place in which to live, a safe place to raise your children (certainly as safe as any other large American city). Imagine being told that Times Square would be cleaned up and tourists could take in the city without fear of being accosted. Imagine being told that a city notorious for mismanagement of its finances would soon be running a $1 billion surplus. Would your response not have been incredulous? Give the man his due. Giuliani has worked miracles in his two terms in office. The Mayor's magnificent handling of the devastation which befell his beloved metropolis comes as no surprise to we Giuliani fans who have cheered his superb stewardship of the city and his earlier career as a crusading federal prosecutor who effectively took on the mob with both courage and determination.
-- Stephanie (firstname.lastname@example.org), December 30, 2001.
I havent really made up my mind on whether TIME did the right/wrong thing by choosing Rudy. But in reading the replies to this, especially Paulines comment about canceling her subscription (had she been subscribed), it made me think that maybe TIME was in a way..saving their hide, by choosing him. I think had they chosen Osama Bin Laden, alot more people would have canceled subscriptions/maybe even boycotted the magazine. *shrug* Perhaps they decided the contraversy would be less, so they went with the "safe" choice.
-- Annette (ImagineBJ@aol.com), January 01, 2002.
Interestingly enough, Stalin was Man of the Year in 1939 and 1942, and Hitler was MotY in 1939. As much as I think today's world is more permissive, I can't imagine Time would have the guts to make choices like those today.
-- Rick Pali (email@example.com), January 02, 2002.
In a way the world is more permissive and tolerant; but there's also the political correctness thing. Maybe we need one to balance out the other?
-- Pauline (firstname.lastname@example.org), January 03, 2002.
I think the scientific evidence that has come to light about the dire contamination and danger to health the site of Ground Zero is, shows what I think most of us knew by instinct. I expect the Mayor went there knowing instinctively what conditions would be. I also am concerned about the people who have been hired to do clean up work there, many of them without respirators or safety equipment.
-- Denver doug (email@example.com), February 15, 2002.
Rudy deserves a pat in the back for a job well done in managing a crisis that rocked America. But, I think Time Magazine doesn't have the balls to name a more deserving person (one who brought good or ill)...that person should be no other than Osama Bin Laden. I hate the man, but this is not a question of who loves who or who hates who...after all stalin and hitler were named in previous person of the year awards. Time's integrity was tested and it's sad to say that the magazine poorly faired.
-- Cromius Bacarius (firstname.lastname@example.org), December 01, 2002.
Now I wonder who they'll pick this year...
-- Pauline (email@example.com), December 01, 2002.
well i for one think Guiliani was an EXCELLENT choice!! i agree with the editors 100%. i really want to know, though, who does everyone think will be man of the year this year??
-- sarah snow (firstname.lastname@example.org), December 10, 2002.