As Benny might say: “it’s in the name. PERSON of the year.” A huge group of protestors isn’t a person- those are called “people.” That said- the Time “person of the year” isn’t made person of the year because they did anything special or necessarily “worthy.” The Person of the year is the person for that year who had the largest impact on the news- good or bad. I don’t know about you- but outside social media I haven’t seen an awful lot about the HK protests let alone any particular individual involved in them- compared to other things or people. Greta- love her, hate her- regardless of what one thinks about her and her cause etc- she’s been all over the news all year. That... satisfies the criteria for person of the year. Being a large group of people with a small slice of the mainstream news that largely- hasn’t really had any social impact here- doesn’t mean a cause isn’t noble or valid- but it doesn’t qualify as “person with impact.”
But FYI that IS democracy. That’s how we elected our current president. Most people voted for someone else, then the people who make the final decision decided that vote wasn’t right- and “fixed it.” That is in many ways upsetting- but this also demonstrates WHY we have that system and not “direct democracy.” People can’t follow 2 single guide lines- one being pretty simple- A person. Think about it for a moment- would you put every decision you made online and live your own life by popular vote doin EXACTLY what was said? Doubtful. You MIGHT agree to let a group of experts who had been vetted do so- and even then you probably would want some sort of veto power right?
Past "persons" of the year:
1956 - "The Hungarian Freedom Fighter" - representing Hungarian revolutionaries involved in the failed 1956 uprising
.
1960 - "U.S. Scientiests" - no less than 16 people from the looks of it
.
1968 - "The Apollo 8 Astronauts" - 3 people
.
1969 - "The Middle Americans"
.
1988 - "The Endangered Earth" - The entire planet was "person of the Year"
.
1993 - "The Peacemakers" - represented by 4 people, in relation to the release of Mandela from prison
2002 - "The Whistleblowers" - two people representing whistleblowers in corporate America (or something)
.
2003 - "The American soldier" - representing US soldiers
.
2005 - The Good Samaritans - 3 celebrities, apparently intended to represent celebrities who give back to the community
.
2006 - "You" - meant to represent individual content creators on the world wide web
.
2011 - "The protestor" - apparently just intended to be a blanket catch-all for anyone who protests anything Times approves of
.
2014 - "Ebola Fighters" - represented by 3 doctors and a nurse
.
2017 - "The silence breakers" - the MeToo movement
.
2018 - "The Guardians" - Journalists that are persecuted, arrested, or killed for their craft. I assume they're including anyone who writes anything about anyone, and not just the actual journalists that try and bring us true facts
You can say what you like about the rest of it, but arguing that the Hong Kong protesters are not perfectly in line with past people, or that they can't be the "person" of the year because the title is only meant to go to singular entities doesn't exactly hold water by the magazine's own standards. Especially not when they had the literal planet as a person of the year.
.
Also: time is a magazine marketing itself to the consumers that are voting. So they probably should consider listening to what those people say once in awhile.
.
Then again, maybe they like being mocked and turned into memes. If that's their jam then they're doing a fine job and I highly encourage them to continue in the manner they are - they're guaranteed to only be met with success
The “person” part was tongue in cheek- hence why I quoted Ben Shapiro- he’s a great comedian it’s just that too many people mistake him for something else- like they Sachs Barron Cohen or John Oliver. The other part was factual- failure, success- importance- relevance- not important under their criteria. The criteria is a person who has had the most impact in the news or on society. Wether THEY followed those criteria or not is irrelevant to the fact that substituting one entity that doesn’t meet a criteria is in principal not an improvement regardless of who you use.
My comments aren’t on who should or should t be person of the year- I’d say my Mother definitely qualifies in my eyes- but if we apply the criteria for which the position is supposed to require- my mother also does not qualify for person of the year.
And of course- it all just proves my point doesn’t it? The guys that make the rules don’t seem to follow their rules do they? So if the people making the rules and the people voting all can’t follow directions- then it’s an exercise in what? Pointlessness. The outcome doesn’t follow the rules or the vote- the people making the rules can’t follow their own rules- and the people voting can’t either.
As for memes and mockery- Kim K, Donald Trump, Jeff Beezy at Amazon, Suckerburg... Time. They all seem to be doing ok for themselves despite mockery. Often they do better because of it. When the mockery stops you don’t hear about many of these people or organizations. I’d wager that Time- being a publication- whores itself out and would (seemingly has) decided on “person of the year” in the past based on a “hidden” criteria of what will get people talking. People debating person of the year gives it power. The Oscars have power because people care who does or doesn’t get them. The Oscars snubs this actor or that- female directors or whoever else- but it’s far less common that actors snub the Oscars. Time person of the year means jack shit.
Some Fops in an office with what? Maybe a degree in journalism? Media? Marketing? What great feats qualify them to have authority to decide a lesson of the year? Who elected them? What power do they have to make that call except that a bunch of people pay attention and indulge their nonsense? Mock, disagree, if you’re discussing it you are giving them power. They exist because we pay attention.knowing this their goal isn’t some altruism or posterity- it’s to draw attention and to create a legacy for themselves.
Times person of the year is always actually... TIME. That’s the not so secret. Boy do they love Time over at Time. And thusly- why direct democracy won’t work. We see the game, we know the game, we say we hate the game- we can’t win the game by playing the game- so we... play the game? Faced with the obvious we just walk right by it and dance to whatever tune is being sung- and then when the people who make the rules break every rule they made and spit in our faces- we do the exact thing they wanted us to do. Let’s discuss their “bold” and “controversial” choice- while they laugh at us.
Quite often in this world of ours- while you’re laughing at someone they are laughing at you for it. Laugh at Kim K or Cardi B. Every laugh helps them buy everything they ever dreamed of. Laugh at Time- as they help shape the politics and culture of society and enjoy a pretty good profit for it. And while we are laughing- how uh... how are we doing? How many of us can say we are doing as well in life as the editor or owners of TIME? Uh oh. I think I hear laughing... and it’s coming from a penthouse in New York.
You're right. Time should absolutely continue ignoring their consumers at all times forever. That's NEVER backfired before, ever. There will never ever be even a tiny possibility that that will go belly up for them. No major corporation or magazine has ever gone bankrupt before in the history of ever. Especially because the Kardashians have giant asses. You win the golden kewpie doll.
Lol. I’m sensing some frustration and sarcasm. (The lol is so you can tell there is a light tone to my voice and that this is banter without ill intent or hostility- not laughing at your reply or state of mind.) If you don’t agree, you don’t agree- and I’m open to discuss your thoughts. You do include some thoughts in your reply so I’ll go with those-
You’re 100% right- and I’m not not was I ever saying otherwise. If any company goes far enough, long enough- it will fold from consumer backlash. How far and how long- well... some companies like oil or transportation companies practically can’t fold (bailouts etc)- in a meaningful way- but Time COULD. But- their business model is supplying people what they WANT, not what they ask for. It’s an important distinction and falls into my whole “this is why we don’t have direct democracy” bit.
People tend to be pretty bad actually at knowing what they even want. Advertising exists to tell you what you want- media to a point as well- to “teach” you what you want. That’s why we feed them, keep them alive. Most people think TMZ are vultures and disgusting- among an industry of paparazzi seen as disgusting. We want what they have though even if we don’t like them. So the balancing point isn’t wether you am give people what they ask for- what they want is more important- but even then if you can just convince them they want what you are selling- that will keep you alive. The misconception is a model where businesses exist at the public’s whim. There is SOME truth to that- but with how hated Comcast or ATT or Microsoft or Apple or Amazon are by so many- BP or Fox or Disney... they’ve done well at carving a place where you can hate them all you want but you’ll still buy what they are selling.
1956 - "The Hungarian Freedom Fighter" - representing Hungarian revolutionaries involved in the failed 1956 uprising
.
1960 - "U.S. Scientiests" - no less than 16 people from the looks of it
.
1968 - "The Apollo 8 Astronauts" - 3 people
.
1969 - "The Middle Americans"
.
1988 - "The Endangered Earth" - The entire planet was "person of the Year"
.
1993 - "The Peacemakers" - represented by 4 people, in relation to the release of Mandela from prison
.
2003 - "The American soldier" - representing US soldiers
.
2005 - The Good Samaritans - 3 celebrities, apparently intended to represent celebrities who give back to the community
.
2006 - "You" - meant to represent individual content creators on the world wide web
.
2011 - "The protestor" - apparently just intended to be a blanket catch-all for anyone who protests anything Times approves of
.
2014 - "Ebola Fighters" - represented by 3 doctors and a nurse
.
2017 - "The silence breakers" - the MeToo movement
.
2018 - "The Guardians" - Journalists that are persecuted, arrested, or killed for their craft. I assume they're including anyone who writes anything about anyone, and not just the actual journalists that try and bring us true facts
.
Also: time is a magazine marketing itself to the consumers that are voting. So they probably should consider listening to what those people say once in awhile.
.
Then again, maybe they like being mocked and turned into memes. If that's their jam then they're doing a fine job and I highly encourage them to continue in the manner they are - they're guaranteed to only be met with success