The wussification of the TIME ‘Person of the Year’

Steve Safran December 17th, 2006

BY STEVE SAFRAN
MANAGING EDITOR
LOST REMOTE
mail (at) stevesafran dot com.

Well, TIME has really gone out on a limb for its Person of the Year for 2006. They gave it to you. And me. All of us. Everyone who contributed to the web. Nice sentiment, but pretty wussy. And totally in keeping with their disturbing recent trend of making safe, largely uninspired choices that are no longer in line with the original mission of the honorific “Person of the Year.” Seriously – what could be safer than giving it to all of us? Talk about the “Me Generation.” The “Person of the Year” is supposed to be someone who for better or worse, has most influenced events in the preceding year. Sure, they’ve given it to groups in the past and often rightly so. But you? I mean, I like you and all, but did you really most influence the events in the preceding year? Did we? And if so, where is our beer?

The wussification of the Person of the Year choices started in earnest in 2001. There is absolutely no question who the person of 2001 is. Who had the most influence on the events of that year? Osama bin Laden. Instead, TIME chose Rudy Giuliani. They knew if they gave it to the right guy that nobody would buy the magazine and advertisers would flee. So they cooked up a halfhearted excuse for why they chose Rudy. He reacted magnificently to the events of 9/11, no doubt. But he didn’t start them. And we didn’t change our foreign policy because of him.

2002 saw another wussy choice: “The Whistleblowers.” They had an impact on Enron, Worldcom, the FBI and American business, no doubt. But did they most influence the events of 2002? Again, it should have been bin Laden or Bush. Both men had an impact on millions of lives. bin Laden’s attacks meant we saw a massive shift in our way of life starting in ’02. All of a sudden, everything was a security scare. In essence, though TIME was afraid to admit it, terrorism worked. For his part, President Bush began a war.

2003: “The American Soldier.” For a second time. In 1950, the soldiers were the first abstract group to be chosen. Good sentiment. But they are tools of war. They cannot have an impact without the command to go to war. This one’s easy: Bush and Saddam. Bush, because he started the first pre-emptive war in American history. Saddam, because he couldn’t seem to get out of his own way. I salute the soldiers. But they were a safe choice.

2004: George W. Bush. Well, now we’re starting to think about the right guy. It’s just the wrong year. By this time, Bush has already launched everything that is going to be his legacy. In 2004, he got re-elected and the choice just looks like cheerleading. The Person of the Year should be Pvt. Lynndie England. She summarizes everything wrong with the Abu Ghraib scandal, with US foreign policy, and with how we somehow started to be perceived as the bad guys. Abu Ghraib helps U.S. lose what’s left of international goodwill following 9/11. Eerie picture of detainee in black hood and blanket standing on a box with wires attached to his outspread arms makes us all question ourselves and what the hell we’re doing.

2005: “The Good Samaritans”: Bono, Bill Gates and Melinda Gates. Seriously? We’re starting to shift to Peace Prize territory here, as Frank Catalano pointed out in the comments on the original LR posting about the Person of the Year.. Bono did not most influence the events of 2005, regardless of how successful the “Elevation” tour went. And Bill Gates has been influential for at least 20 years to this point – but way more so because of his company, not his donations. This was the “Year of Two Popes,” whose passing and anointing affected the millions of Catholics around the world and non-Catholics who remain fascinated by the Church. Mark Felt came out as “Deep Throat.” The terrorists attacked London. And – oh, yeah – Katrina destroyed New Orleans. (Give it to “Brownie!” Between Katrina, the record number of hurricanes, the Kashmir earthquake that killed 2005 people, the Tsunami (technically in 2004, but the aftermath went right into the New Year), the Evansville Tornado that killed 22, and the UN Climate Change Conference, Mother Nature had a big year. According to Wikipedia, “2005 was also the costliest year for natural disasters, with world wide damages estimated at over 200 billion dollars.” So if you want an abstract, Mother N is the way to go. Or at least “The Terrorists,” who had another gangbuster year. Bono, Bill and Melinda? Nice people of the year, perhaps. Mother Nature? Total Bitch who screwed up millions of lives. She gets it.

2006: “You” win. Wussification complete. Call Mom. Now, there’s no question online media had a big year. Jeff Jarvis at one point nominated the inventors of Blogger for a Nobel Peace Prize. Good choice, that. But if you want to pick the YouTubers, you have to go with the YouTube guys, Chad Hurley and Steve Chen. The definitely changed the world. YouTube influenced the outcome of the midterm election (hello, “macacca”), the way networks approach distributed media, and the way we consume and contribute to our own entertainment and education. Still, Chad and Steve made it possible. Imagine a world without lonelygirl15. I shudder. Chad and Steve also sold the thing for $1.65 billion, giving them the Best Year Ever, too.

2007: Well, we’ve run out of everyone on the planet, except for the kids born this year. Maybe there’s a baby gaining serious power in a chaotic nation right now… or, at least, giving away a lot of money or writing a neat bit of software.

——————————————
Footnote: Wikipedia consulted liberally for this article. Those dudes totally deserve an award, too.

15 Comments Add your own

1. Chris | December 17th, 2006 at 12:16 pm

they should make a separate category for “Issue” or “Trend” of the year. It’s lame to see these group choices year after year. Takes away ALL of the anticipation and excitement.
2. Michael Rosenblum | December 17th, 2006 at 1:01 pm

there is a reason there are more staples in Time Magazine than ads. They should change the name to Oatmeal.
3. David Westin | December 17th, 2006 at 1:09 pm

Why not Warren Buffett? Who else has given away more than $30 billion at once?

What is wrong with the news, which is now really the entertainment business, is doling out hundreds of millions in contracts to Couric, Vieira, et al.

News is all about resources and sources. NBC swung the axe, eliminating many jobs, but they pay Meredith over $10 MIL a year.

At the local level, it’s all about “reporting” on Paris, Nicole, Lindsay, Brad and Angelina, and yawn, yawn, yawn. That, and the breaking news 2-alarm fire at a vacant house.

The cable news biz also runs on cycles. Sorry to say, but the Oregon hikers are being covered because James Kim got lost on a family trip. It does seem ironic that a guy so consumed with tech gadgets didn’t have a GPS device; something that apparently has never been reported. Sadly, his widow will be rolled out come ratings’ season.
4. discreet_chaos | December 17th, 2006 at 2:39 pm

I don’t know. Whenever I’ve seen a poll on the question, I’ve voted for “citizen journalists” and I include YouTubers and bloggers into that category. Both had impacts, but you can’t really say that one had any more influence than the other. YouTube may have given us “macaca”, but the bloggers did something remarkable in Connecticut. It may be a wussification and part of a “TIME” trend, perhaps the “you” also includes the electorate, but no matter what kind of reverence you hold for a couple of guys and a single website; 2006 was much bigger than just them. It included all of us.
5. Charles | December 17th, 2006 at 2:53 pm

I’m very surprised. For a website that preaches the gospel of user-friendly websites and interactivity, I would have thought that this cover story would have made “30 LR” happy.

We’ve just seen the internet surpass newspapers as a source for news. We blog about it. YouTube played a big role in the elections. Nowdays, it’s not just Bob Woodward who can bring down politicians… It’s any group of bloggers who are angry and organized.

Expecting to see Tomkat, Couric or Rosie being named person of the year, this was a VERY pleasant surprise. In a free speech society, this WAS a very big year in internet expansion and pioneering. In 2006, the world got a whole lot smaller, and the web got a whole lot smarter.
6. Steve Safran | December 17th, 2006 at 3:42 pm

I think I’m being misunderstood somewhat. We LOVE all that happened with participatory journalism in ‘06. It was a breakout time for all of us. YouTube was a huge game-changer. 2006 may have turned out to be the most significant year in convergence history. Indeed, Charles, we have many things to celebrate ’round the Festivus Pole at 30 LR, across the scenic campus from One LR Plaza.

What I don’t like is the overall trend toward safe, comfortable, U.S.-centric, U.S.-happy choices. The choices used to be truly editorial. Now they are transparently calculated to sell magazines (or, at least, not lose sales and advertising).

“You” may have been a meme of the year. A concept of the year. A change of the year. But the Person of the Year? “Someone/group who for better or worse, has most influenced events in the preceding year?” Can’t you really say this about us every year? And doesn’t it take all the fun out of the parlor game of guessing “who will it be?” now that it - literally - can be everyone and everything?
7. Charles | December 17th, 2006 at 9:20 pm

Oh… I’m sure I meant “One LR Plaza”… But hey, you guys definately have offices at 30 LR anyway, so, the expression still fits.

In 1988, Earth itself was named “_____ of the Year”. Naming the planet itself I think is one of the FEW things you could do to be more broad and general than “You”. And there have been several groups and “abstracts”, as Wikipedia refers to them as, throughout the century.

I can agree on the fact that it has become more “U.S.-centric” in the past decade. (1996 was the last year that featured a foreign-born individual living outside of the United States.)

Now, I *HATE* always disagreeing with you guys, because that seems to be all I do here, and I LOVE this site with serious affection and adoration. (And yet, I’m always giving a counterpoint!) But, this year’s selection is less “wussification” as it is very, very clever. Especially since this year saw more focus on online video, embedded video clips, buying out of huge media companies (YouTube, MySpace), and the continued explosion of blogs and social networking sites. Even news sites vastly expanded their online offerings versus a year ago. You can get a version of each nightly newscast online (albeit a afternoon edition, a live simulcast or a late-night stream.). We also saw iTunes adding video, which further expanded podcasting and vodcast offerings, from both individuals and from companies.

On the surface, “You” does sound kind of cheap and kind of a cop-out, and when compared with the cover choices over the past decade or so, yeah, it doesn’t look the *best*. But on it’s own merits, it’s still a very clever, unique idea. And now I can say “Yeah, you know Steve Safran? One of the guys behind Lost Remote? One of TIME’s people of the year? Yeah, I comment on his blog.”
8. Safran | December 18th, 2006 at 5:15 am

And I can say one of the People of the Year comments on my blog. And I disagree with him sometimes. But that’s why I like him.
9. Rocker | December 18th, 2006 at 7:57 am

TIME? What’s that? I vaguely remember some dead-tree news vehicle a long time ago…or was that LIFE? Is it something that matters? Someone help me out here…
10. aimes2 | December 18th, 2006 at 8:17 am

Good post. All this POTY is simply about sanitized PR and corporate synergies… how many times are we going to have to hear about how cool this is on CNN?

It is American-centric wussiness 100%. Is there going to be a discussion about the digital divide across economic classes in this POTY story?

I like the internet as much as the next person and I am not doubting the power of user created content, but let’s get over ourselves.

This choice tells me that people who work in the corporate media industries are living in a bubble when it comes to what really impacts people around the world. What percentage of the global population reads blogs? hahaha.

All this “You-ness” is just about finding the next My Space so these media-types can pretend they are “with it” in order to pump out more ads… and sanitize Youtube.

Here’s a tip: SecondLife is for chumps.
11. themofo | December 18th, 2006 at 10:29 am

After much thought, I’ve decided to decline accepting this award.
12. Richard Davies | December 18th, 2006 at 11:46 am

Ever wonder why the news media pay less and less attention to Time’s Person of the Year? The magazine’s choice is another example of a cop out.

Person of the year should have been Time’s runner up Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. But he wouldn’t have been a sexy choice, would he? The rise of Shi-ite Islam (Al Sadr in Iraq, Nasrallah in Lebanon) is a huge story. But with Time trying desperately to be “hot”, this one rates an inside page. Too bad.
13. Missy Blankenship | January 4th, 2007 at 10:11 pm

Thank you. I sincerely appreciate the honor. I thoroughly plan to add this award to my resume!

>>} (tongue-in-cheek)
14. directtv | March 27th, 2007 at 3:52 am

Blog of directtv
15. Sam | January 18th, 2008 at 7:43 am

Wow, thanks for the excellent information!