Time's Person of the Year

Pie of the year: Apple

 

Oh fuck. I hadn't turned the page.

 

Turns out Time just wanted to put the "Self-entitled douchebag who wants everything for free without working an honest day in their live and blaming everyone else for their mistakes" as Person of the Year but, it turns out, that wouldn't fit on the front cover so they went with "The Protester" instead. Tomato, Tomato.

 

I can't tell if you're talking about Occupy Wall Street, or just Wall Street.

 

It wasn't me. It was You.

 

Doesn't need to be an either/or situation.

 

I think part of the reason you are seeing more of these pluralized choices is the fractured media landscape. We're not in the world of three TV networks anymore - everyone has their own "truth" and their isn't much of a national "consensus" on anything because we all see things, and now have the "facts" (whomever or wherever we get our news) to back them up.
In the same way that the "great man" period of history has been undermined by the greater access to media of everyone, it has also proven harder to harness public opinion. And, as these posts have proven, makes it difficult for any media entity to fully satisfy.
It's one of the things that make these movements both incredibly powerful and also difficult to assess - there isn't a Dr. King or Gandhi leading the way, negotiating with the powers that be, providing for a peaceful resolution or maybe be wiling to be bought off.

 

Two thoughts:

1) I would think more of this selection if I really thought it had anything to do with the Arab Spring, as opposed to the editors deciding "it's what everyone's talking about" when the protest hit Manhattan.

2) I would love to hear an explanation for how Kate Middleton is a top finalist for Person of the Year and Gabby Giffords is not.

 

Because she's related to Pippa, who according to Baba Wawa is one of the year's 10 most fascinating people...

 

Giffords' husband was one of Esquire's Men of the Year and while I'm not sure he would have been my choice, it was at least an interesting selection.

 

The thing about Giffords and Middleton is that it wasn't so much anything they did, but something that happened to them that made them newsworthy. You want to name Prince William for "restoring interest in the royals?" fine. But all Middleton did was say "yes."
I'm sure most of the "runners-up" are mainly there to appeal to different groups and spur sales anyway.
At least next year, they'll just go with an actual person, unless "none of the above" wins the White House.

 

I don't mind disagreeing with the choice, but I do mind when I feel like they just took the easy route and didn't pick an actual person.