The Time Person of the Year is. ...

That was the year the groundbreaking '55 Chevy came out with its 265 V-8. Duh.

 

But Chevy didn't make a 327 in '55, the 327 didn't come out till '62. And it wasn't offered in the Bel Air with a four-barrel carb till '64. However, in 1964, the correct ignition timing would be four degrees before top-dead-center.

 

Do you distinguish between Peace/Literature/Economics and the science prizes?

 

Still waiting for any evidence that Time's decision is motivated by sales, other than that's what everybody claims.

Half the time they pick the president, which automatically pisses half the country off. Then there's the occasional Russkie or some other brand of bad guy, which doesn't exactly send issues flying off the shelves. Throw in the "nameless" winners (woman, soldier, protester, computer, You), and I just don't see it.

If, God forbid, they ever did risk Starman justice by picking a Miley Cyrus or someone like that, then I'll buy it.

 

It's an "award" given by the employees of a magazine using vague criteria. Magazines are commercial products that are ALWAYS motivated by sales.

Why do you think it's so meaningful? Do you really think some of the selections you mention, or the "candidacy" of Osama bin Laden in 2001, were not made to generate "buzz?"

 

I differentiate awards based on actual criteria, not something as nebulous as writing well or encouraging peace.

 

Are creating buzz and being meaningful mutually exclusive? Sounds to me like publication nirvana.

 

When it comes to intent, they are mutually exclusive in this case. IMO, of course.