Person of the Year

[_random_]

Fejsbuk (in Polish) is lame.

Everything (in Polish) is lame. I like Facebook, but I don't really see what Zuckerberg has done that's terribly notable this year. Assange would definitely be a better choice. The only real competition would be some representative of the Tea Party movement, since they've certainly had an impact, but it doesn't really stack up to Wikileaks'.

 

[amadeus]

Dying Magazine Prints Controversial Cover Story in Effort to Boost Sales

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

Probably if TIME did that they would get into deep crap or something.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

Julian Assange should have won, with a distant second to Tony Hayward.

 

[MobBoss]

I think Hayward had far more actual impact than Assange.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Did he cause the spill? A CEO doesn't do everything at a company...

 

[madviking]

Uh, please remind me why it really matters which person Time picks as PotY? They have a track record of not really caring, see 2006 [You]. Well, obviously they picked Zuckerberg over Assange for the reason amadeus stated, to create some sort of controversy which causes people to buy and read an issue of the magazine.

 

[bhsup]

It should have collectively gone to the teaparty candidates that won.

 

[MobBoss]

Did he cause the spill? A CEO doesn't do everything at a company...

Ditto for Assange. He didnt 'do everything' either.....

But Hayward and BP in general directly affected far, far more people than wikileaks has. I dont even see how that is even arguable.

 

[amadeus]

It should have collectively gone to the teaparty candidates that won.

Agreed, unless TIME is just now publishing Man of the Year for 2008.

 

[cardgame]

yeah the movie is the only thing that got him into the slot...

Assange wins hands friggin' down...

 

[JollyRoger]

It should have collectively gone to the teaparty candidates that won.

A collectivist award for Teahadists? Might distract them from writing earmarks for a day or two.

 

[Glassfan]

Person of the year? Miss September.

 

[GenMarshall]

Julian Assange should be tared and feathered! Not be nominated for Person of the Year.

 

[Camikaze]

This thread is meant to be more about who you think should've won, and less about why you think Zuckerberg shouldn't have.

Now as said, Assange does seem the obvious candidate, but maybe that's just because he's been prominent in recent months. If we disregard Assange, who else would be a candidate? Hayward does seem a good pick; he was constantly in the news for quite a while. Who else has had a notable presence in events this year?

 

[Lord Baal]

Julia Gillard.





Seriously, Assange is the obvious choice. And I, like aimee, had not a frigging clue who that Zuckerberg git was. Now that I know I like him even less.

Other than Assange, is there anyone else who's really dominated the media this year for so long? Not that Time's PotY means anything anyway; they chose Kenneth frigging Starr one year for Woden's sake. Sadly, the next most dominant personality in the public eye might be Palin.

 

[MobBoss]

This thread is meant to be more about who you think should've won, and less about why you think Zuckerberg shouldn't have.

Now as said, Assange does seem the obvious candidate, but maybe that's just because he's been prominent in recent months. If we disregard Assange, who else would be a candidate? Hayward does seem a good pick; he was constantly in the news for quite a while. Who else has had a notable presence in events this year?

Well, Hayward had several South Park episodes in reference to him. I dont think they have done Assange yet. So there.

 

[metatron]

Facebook is useless except for three things:
-becoming depressive as a result of all the opportunity costs
-wasting time
-becoming more stupid
Time Magazine is useful for exactly those things minus the first.

Joining Facebook is about as reasonable as consciously deciding to start a coke habit in order to have more energy at work.

I think Hayward had far more actual impact than Assange.

I agree.

It should have collectively gone to the teaparty candidates that won.

Well, around here both Assange and Hayward each recieved way more media coverage than the entire Tea Party phenomenon and the entire Republican Party and the curious phenomenen of Faux News combined.
Wilders and his party got about as much coverage as the Tea party here, too.

 

[Camikaze]

Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert might be two to get honourable mentions (in fact, IIRC, they were in the Time online poll).

Nick Clegg and/or David Cameron would also be two that stood out, particularly the former specifically for 2010.

 

[_random_]

Uh, please remind me why it really matters which person Time picks as PotY? They have a track record of not really caring, see 2006 [You]. Well, obviously they picked Zuckerberg over Assange for the reason amadeus stated, to create some sort of controversy which causes people to buy and read an issue of the magazine.

I would imagine that Assange would be the more controversial choice if that's their goal.