Man, I am pissed. Time picked its Man of the Year today, and it’s Rudy Giuliani. Not to take anything away from Rudy, but is there any conceivable argument that it’s not Osama bin Laden? Who influenced the course of world events more this year, Osama or Rudy? It’s not even close.
If the people who run Time were even remotely honest with themselves, they’d admit as much. But they knew that naming bin Laden would have gotten lots of folks mad, so they chickened out. That kind of cowardly behavior has no place in journalism — you report the news no matter who it’s going to piss off. (I guess there goes my chance at a good AOL Time Warner job.)
Update: Josh Marshall agrees. “Time’s decision to make Giuliani its Person of the Year represents a colossal failure of nerve and honesty. And it may even be a small sign of the baleful effects of media industry conglomeration.” (An interesting idea I hadn’t thought of. If Time was just Time, withstanding a public backlash would be easier. Now that it’s CNN/AOL/Time/WB/etc., (a) a backlash could be much more broadly based, and (b) the journalistic ethic is more diluted within the megacorporation.)
8 thoughts on “rudy as man of the year”
Comments are closed.
I had the same conversation with someone last week. I said they should pick bin Laden, but they probably wouldn’t because of national sentiment, the weaklings. But I guess my journalism professors did their job well, eh?
But is “Man of the Year” really “news”? It seems strange to require that Time be objective in making what is, ultimately, a subjective distinction.
Of course they’re free to choose whoever they want. But when they proclaim that the award is meant to go to “the one person on Earth who has had the biggest effect on history throughout the year — for better or worse,” they at least have an obligation to follow their own guidelines. Yes it’s subjective, but they have an obligation to go about their selection honestly.
Ok…I never knew about the “biggest effect on history – for better or worse” part. In that case, I understand where you’re coming from.
Check out this blurb from Studio Briefing:
“New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, selected Friday as Time magazine’s Man of the Year, is close to signing a deal with NBC to become a regular commentator on the network and on WNBC-TV, the net’s flagship station in New York, New York Post columnist Neal Travis reported today (Monday), citing “rumors sweeping the TV industry.” Last week, several publications claimed that executives at Time Inc., which publishes Time magazine, were engaged in heated conversations with top execs at corporate parent AOL Time Warner over the possibility that Osama bin Laden would be chosen Man of the Year. While officials of the magazine have long claimed that the primary consideration for the year-end selection is an individual’s impact on society — good or bad — during the proceeding year, AOL executives reportedly feared that the public would regard a bin Laden’s Man of the Year cover as a type of award and boycott not only the magazine but other AOL Time Warner businesses as well.”
Lest we think Time shied away from evil-doers in years past consider these previous recipients: Hitler got it in 1938, Stalin in 1939 and 1942, the Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979.
Of course, if you look at things in relative terms…Dubya was last years POTY so this is a step up.
Not surprisingly GWB appears to be the prominent choice among the conservative freeper types out there. A few appear to think it’s a plot by Time to give Bush a slap in the face.
Anyone know the al-Qaeda and Taliban activist sites? I bet they’re whining about the choice too.
Well, I just don’t think that Osama has had the same stature as Hitler, Stalin or Khomeini. Well, not yet at any rate. Give him time, I’m sure he’s just warming up.
Heh but would Time magazine really count as journalism? It’s about on par up there with TV Guide. Go back to sleep, America, your government has it all under control. Go back to sleep, go drink a beer, here read this and get fat and stupid, your government has it all under control . . .