YooYoo From Canada, joined Nov 2003, 6057 posts, RR: 50
Reply 9, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 3074 times:
Since 1927, TIME Magazine has chosen a man, woman, or idea that "for better or worse, has most influenced events in the preceding year." Though TIME's list is not an academic or objective study of the past, the list gives a contemporary viewpoint of what was important during each year
I am so smart, i am so smart... S-M-R-T... i mean S-M-A-R-T
AerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 3074 times:
Thanks to everyone for their responses.
I want to emphasize that the selection of TIME's Man of the Year is based on a determination of the person or thing that has most changed the events of the last year, for better or worse, as others have already said.
To me, Al-Sadr of Iraq has made American policy in Iraq essentially a hash by exploiting his relationship with Prime Minister Al-Maliki to the extent that the U.S. has seriously contemplated significant redeployment of its troops to locations outside of that country. He himself has remained untouchable. I believe that both his following and his influence on the options for the world's sole remaining superpower qualify him eminently for the award.
LTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13279 posts, RR: 16
Reply 18, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 2915 times:
In the last 25 + years, since the 1979 choice of Ayatollah Khomeini,Time Magazine's "_____of the Year" choices have often been chosen to prevent possible negative affects on sales and subscriptions. As previous post links note, people misinterpret the choice to be an 'honor' not an acknowlegment of a person/situation that did affect the world per the original standard of this notice. What that means is that 'bad guys' and controversial people (like the Terror leaders) are unlikely to be chosen, although by the initial standard should be chosen.
More likely are:
A sitting US President - Bush in 2004 and at least once each President's term. Sometimes that is to keep in their good graces and access to them.
Several people - like the 3 women who were 'whistleblowers' as to corporate crime chosen in 2002, or Bill Gates, his wife, Bono for their important charity work and donations affecting parts of the world with serious problems.
American Soldiers in Iraq/Afganistan in 2003. A very safe choice in that it avoids any politicans and supported by many in the public for the danger they face.
Leaders in time of crises - like then NY City Mayor Giuliani in 2001 for his leadership of the city during and after the the WTC 9/11 terror acts. In 2001, more correct per the old Time standard would have been Osama bin-Laden, but it was clear that due to economic reasons, Time couldn't chose him. Better yet in 2001 should have been all of the victims of the 9/11 attacks or the First Responders (cops, firefighters) killed in the attacks or involved in attempted rescues.
Perhaps for 2006, President Bush could be chosen (again), for his hard headed policies in Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea, the 'War on Terror', all of which affect the attitudes of the world toward the USA. Another could be retiring Dept. of Defense leader Donald Rumsfeld.
In my opinion, another possible choice could be the issue of Global Warming or the Scientists noting the growing problem of it. While controversial by some, most people who follow the news generally agree with the science on this issue. It would also bring attention to what most believe is the most critical issue we must deal with now to preserve the future of our earth.
FlyDeltaJets87 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 2902 times:
Quoting WSOY (Reply 7): Some of the select few. Quite correct choices, in fact.
1938: Adolf Hitler
1939: Joseph Stalin
Hell, Osama bin Laden was nominated in 2001, and according to the criteria for Time's "Man of the Year", he probably was the most "qualified". Though the title was given to Giuliani becuase most felt giving the award to bin Laden would have sent the wrong message to both sides.
For those who don't know, "Man of the Year" goes to the person who has the biggest influence on the media, good or bad really.
Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 18): Bush in 2004 and at least once each President's term. Sometimes that is to keep in their good graces and access to them.
Both of Bush's "Man of the Year" came during the election cycles of 2000 and 2004.
Though looking at the list online, "both of the Bushes" won the title in 1990, so I guess that means W. has received the title three times.