[otis52]

Today on the radio I heard that Time magazine was going to feature Bin Laden as man of the year. I have not been able to find any hard evidence that this is true that's why I making this post. Has enyone else heard of this? If so how stupid can the media be?

[Demonhood]

I've heard this as well. Seems pretty appropriate.

You've got to realize that "Man of the Year" doesn't equal "good guy that we all love". It just means that the individual (they've named machines as "Thing of the Year" before), has had a lot of influence on the year's events. Bin Laden certainly qualifies. Remember, Hitler was man of the year for 1938.

[juanvaldes]

Originally posted by otis52:
<STRONG>Today on the radio I heard that Time magazine was going to feature Bin Laden as man of the year. I have not been able to find any hard evidence that this is true that's why I making this post. Has enyone else heard of this? If so how stupid can the media be? </STRONG>

I heard something stupid like Stalin or something...some commey. Do no... But really do you even care? I know I don't.

[otis52]

Originally posted by Demonhood:
<STRONG>Remember, Hitler was man of the year for 1938.</STRONG>

this is just so f@#ked up. giving thiese as@#oles exactly what they want. recognition for they stupid cause....

[FulcrumPilot]

If there is a mass boycotting for that issue of Time, I suppose the message from the people will be nicely delivered to media and the rest of the world. just my 0.02$.

[Demonhood]

Stalin was Man of the Year in 39 & 42.

this is just so f@#ked up. giving thiese as@#oles exactly what they want. recognition for they stupid cause....

That's not their objective, of course. It's not like the accompanying articles in 38 was saying "Hitler's turn-ons include loud speeches, twisted crosses, uniformed men, and small moustaches. His turn-offs include Jews, people that disagree with him, Gypsies, Jews, homosexuals, and Jews." Osama is already on the cover of every magazine around. And each one of those mags is providing us with plenty of info on what he thinks/believes. The more we learn about him, the more we hate him. So it's not like being named Man of the Year is going to win him any converts. It'll just be another picture to use on your dartboard.

[otis52]

Originally posted by Demonhood:
<STRONG> It'll just be another picture to use on your dartboard.</STRONG>

very true....

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by Demonhood:
<STRONG>I've heard this as well. Seems pretty appropriate.

You've got to realize that "Man of the Year" doesn't equal "good guy that we all love". It just means that the individual (they've named machines as "Thing of the Year" before), has had a lot of influence on the year's events. Bin Laden certainly qualifies. Remember, Hitler was man of the year for 1938.</STRONG>

Wasn't Steve Jobs nearly Man of the Year one year?

[John B. Smith]

Originally posted by otis52:
<STRONG>

this is just so f@#ked up. giving thiese as@#oles exactly what they want. recognition for they stupid cause....</STRONG>

true, but let them have all the fame they want.. in the end justice is done..

[Fyre4ce]

It's highly appropriate to name him Man of the Year. The title doesn't imply he's done good things; it's got more to do with his influence (positive or negative) on the world. Because of him, our military is drastically changing (from Cold War superpower conflict to this terrorist warfare). The consequences of Sept 11 are far-reaching - that's just one example

[MikeM32]

How about the title reading like this.......... "(most hated) Man of the year". That works out I think.

Mike

[nonhuman]

Maybe his real goal all along was to be "man of the year," and once he get there he'll be satisfied. Or maybe he's just like some spoiled child who wants attention and if we ignore him he'll go away... Either way, it's certainly appropriate to make him "man of the year," he's probably more prevalent in the minds of americans than anyone else. It's all just a big popularity contest anyway.

[SillyMonk]

Originally posted by Demonhood:
<STRONG> It's not like the accompanying articles in 38 was saying "Hitler's turn-ons include loud speeches, twisted crosses, uniformed men, and small moustaches. His turn-offs include Jews, people that disagree with him, Gypsies, Jews, homosexuals, and Jews." </STRONG>

That's darn witty....

But who else should be Man of theYear, if not Osama bin Ladin? Everyone else is reacting to that first, awful decision to bomb NYC and D.C.

[AlbertWu]

...possibly dean kamen?

i'd say he has a chance. he's probably the only person that's EVER generated so much media hype for a single product, even, contrary to popular to believe, surpassing jobs

[M�lum]

Read here why HITLER was choosen in 1938 as Man Of The Year: http://www.time.com/time/special/moy/1938.html



And here why STALIN was choosen Man Of tThe Year in 1842: http://www.time.com/time/special/moy/1942.html

and in 1939: http://www.time.com/time/special/moy/1939.html



And why not:
In 1937 we had Chiang Kai-Shek.



[ 12-07-2001: Message edited by: M�lum ]

[ 12-07-2001: Message edited by: M�lum ]

[Millennium]

The title "Man of the Year" is not always an honor. All it means is that the recipient has had a profound effect on history, moreso than anyone else that year. And when you consider the inventive method of terrorism, the utter desctuction of one important American landmark and severe damage to another, getting a nation to declare war on a non-national entity, and getting the US to betray its own Constitution multiple times, who could possibly deny that bin Laden has certainly had a profound effect on history?

I just hope the article doesn't have an honorific tone.

[daimoni]

.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Yup, it'll only be due to people overwhelmingly misunderstanding the 'Man of the Year' title, that would prevent bin Laden from getting it. In truth though, by the same reasons that Hitler, Stalin and others recieved the title, he simply MUST be the 'Man of the Year' for 2001.

Wonder who it would be, had 9/11 never happened? Or if pressure is so great they don't go with bin Laden, who then? True, Dean Kamen isn't a bad choice, but I'd bet anything more people would hear his name and go 'who'? than would bin Laden. From a historical viewpoint, people looking back will totally see that the only reason bin Laden wasn't chosen, was due to negative public pressure, not from a factual recounting of history, which I think would be weak.

At least when Hitler was deemed too distasteful to make 'Person of the Century' there was a better alternative that fit perfectly in Albert Einstein. Thank God for Albert!

[pcd2k]

turn the volume up and click

http://www.yonkis.ya.com/imagenes5/guerra/talibamm.htm

[Nebrie]

Originally posted by M�lum:
<STRONG>And why not:
In 1937 we had Chiang Kai-Shek.



[ 12-07-2001: Message edited by: M�lum ]

[ 12-07-2001: Message edited by: M�lum ]</STRONG>

Um, he wasn't a commie, rather the leader of China's very short period of democracy.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by Nebrie:
<STRONG>

Um, he wasn't a commie, rather the leader of China's very short period of democracy.</STRONG>

And?

[Adam Silver]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
<STRONG>Wonder who it would be, had 9/11 never happened? Or if pressure is so great they don't go with bin Laden, who then? True, Dean Kamen isn't a bad choice, but I'd bet anything more people would hear his name and go 'who'? than would bin Laden. From a historical viewpoint, people looking back will totally see that the only reason bin Laden wasn't chosen, was due to negative public pressure, not from a factual recounting of history, which I think would be weak.</STRONG>

I think it would probably go to President Bush if nothing happened on September 11. If it weren't for that event, 2001 would have been a relatively uneventful year. Time usually gives the Man of the Year title to the President of the United States if nothing interesting happens in a year.

If not Bush, perhaps it would have been Jim Jeffords. He managed to take a great deal of the President's leverage by becoming an independent and giving the Democrats control of the Senate. But even this doesn't seem important enough to give him the Man of the Year title.

[AlbertWu]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
<STRONG>Thank God for Albert!</STRONG>

[otis52]

I still don't understand why people continue to glorify these monsters. I don't care if hitler was man of the year in 38 it doesn't make it right. And after 62 years you would think that people would start to relize that putting an animal like bin laden or hitler on the cover of one of the most prestigeous news magizines in the US, the same country that they spit on, bomb, burn flags whatever, and make him man of the year is just uncalled for. Here time magizine is going to take this scumbags picture post it on the front of there mag write a huge article about him and thousands of Americans will go out and buy it.. It just makes me ashamed .. ashamed to be an American

[ 12-10-2001: Message edited by: otis52 ]

[cpatubo]

It's a vicious circle...

The media makes bin Laden a prominent figure, plasters his image everywhere. Time Magazine makes him man of the year.

A snake eating its tail.

[Demonhood]

once again, man of the year does not mean that he's a liked figure. it's not even a real award. there is no ceremony for him to attend. he's not going to walk on stage, accepting a little statue, making his speech "I'd like to thank Allah, my thousands of brainwashed minions, the part of my family that hasn't disowned me, and Britney Spears. She can be a part of my harem anytime!" just before the band cuts in and they go to commercial.

he's on the cover of every magazine anyway. there are hundreds of articles written about him every day. it's not glorifying him at all. do you really think that someone is going to see "Bin Laden: Man of the Year" and think "hey, he must have some great ideas. where can i sign up?" after all that they now know? anyhow, could Bin Laden be any more famous? i think not. he's already everywhere you look. everyone knows what he stands for. hell, half the people in this forum would strangle him with their bare hands if given the chance. nothing in a magazine is going to change that.

TIME isn't going to put up an image of him smiling, with daisies in the backdrop and a rainbow gracing the sky. i think i heard that if Bin Laden is killed before the end of the year, they have to pick someone else. it'll probably be some scientist we've never heard of. i somehow doubt that Bush will get it.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by Demonhood:
<STRONG>it'll probably be some scientist we've never heard of. i somehow doubt that Bush will get it.</STRONG>

Maybe it'll be ...damn I forgot his name. You know, the "ginger" guy...

[CaseCom]

The Time Web site has a quote from Henry Luce saying the Man/Person/Whatever of the year is "the person or persons who most affected the news of our lives, for good or for ill, this year."

It's gonna be Bin Laden.

[cpatubo]

I agree that he is the man of the year, but I don't necessarily like it.

Admit it, he is the topic of conversation everywhere. The most famous guy in a dirty turban and ugly beard these days.

That, my friends, is why he is man of the year.

If they could do people of the year, I would've chosen all the rescue personnel at Ground Zero.

[Stoopid]

I don't think Time Magazine will make OBL MOY. Not only would it anger so many, but really what's more impressive? That some cave-dwelling playboy bank-rolled these awful deeds that had the potential of ripping apart our families, economy, and freedom... or that the world is pulling together and moving on, scarred but smarter, with a sense of determination and spirit not seen since wwII, if ever.

They will probably go with something more upbeat and triumphant that features the US's renewed patriotism, vigilance, and unity.

I bet they choose the sentimental, upbeat route and pick Guiliani or the FDNY or Ground Zero Worker or maybe something more abstract like "courage" or the WTC as "Buildings of the year."

They are trying to sell a "keepsake magazine," not piss off people.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by Stoopid:
<STRONG>They are trying to sell a "keepsake magazine," not piss off people.</STRONG>

I don't think they are or should be. If Bin-Laden becomes the man of the year they are being accurate, because he certainly fits the qualifications more than anyone else I can think of. And, if they do, I'll respect them more for maintaining their journalistic integrity instead of bowing to the masses.

[otis52]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
<STRONG> journalistic integrity</STRONG>

Is that a oxymoron or what?

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by otis52:
<STRONG>

Is that a oxymoron or what? </STRONG>

LOL, good point. But I think you know what I mean.

[Demonhood]

Looks like Time wimped out. Person of the Year = Giuliani

Originally posted by Demonhood:
<STRONG>Looks like Time wimped out. Person of the Year = Giuliani</STRONG>

I was kinda surprised by that.

otis52, do you think that just because Time chose not to feature him as man of they year, all his followers will just disappear and September 11th will have never happened? Everyone knows who he is (and they have made up their mind on him), he would benefit from this in any way. The fact is, he has been one of the most influential people of the year- and very possibly of the coming decade.

[ 12-23-2001: Message edited by: Rampage ]

[DoctorGonzo]

Looks like Time wimped out. Person of the Year = Giuliani

Did a lot of great things for New York after September 11th....certainly.

Had the greatest effect on the world in 2001....absolutely not.

[didn't read right][/LIST][/LIST]
[ 12-23-2001: Message edited by: Rampage ]

[MikeM32]

I think it's pretty convenient for Giuliani anyway, since his reputation kinda sucked prior to Sept 11th.

Mike

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Giuliani?

Sure, he did a great job, no doubting that.. but 'Man of the Year' for 2001? Please!

This was such a spineless cop out. Okay, if not bin Laden, then surely someone could have gotten a **little** bit more creative and really come up with a better alternative.

Just declaring all the NYC firefighters the 'People of the Year' would have been less of a cop out than Giuliani.

[micha schraven]

"if you dont like the US bombing Osama, then go to Afghanistan"
-an attempt to a write a serious letter sent in by a person in TIME

"..protesters against the bombing of afghanistan are only trying to raise confusion. And confusion is the stuff that terrorism thrives on !.."
-another letter from another concerned TIMEreader

---Which editor would pass such dumb letters to be published? This magazine is so stupid and subjective.
Have you seen their 'pictures of the year 2001"? As if there is no world before september 11th.

They suck.

[Face Ache]

Rudolph who?

Nothing will be the same after Sept 11th.

Including reality.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by Face Ache:
<STRONG>Rudolph who?

Nothing will be the same after Sept 11th.

Including reality.</STRONG>

I disagree, my life has been completely unchanged by it. The only difference I've noticed that that everyone has a stupid little flag on their car, and my mom did up the christmas tree to look like the Russian Federation's flag (you know, red, white, and blue in big horizontal stripes). Other than that everything seems to be exactly the way it's always been. I guess that's one of the advantages of not watching or reading or listening to the news.

[GRAFF]

What do you expect? Since Time magazine was sucked into that black hole of a mega conglomerate AOL/TIME/WARNER etc. it has to appeal to the maximum number of readers (or picture viewers). They have gone completely PC by replacing "Man of the Year" with the wimpy "Person of the Year" and completely copped out by not selecting bin Laden. Year after year they explain their criteria for selecting their man of the year and then do a complete about-face.

Giuliani may easily be the New Yorker of the year, but has Time forgotten their readers outside of the boroughs of NYC? Here in Paris, one would immediately reply "Giuliani who?"

[Millennium]

Well, there's another magazine I won't read again. As yet another once-respectable American institution shows just how little integrity it has in the wake of September 11...

For the record, there were four candidates this year: OBL, Bush, firefighters and rescue workers in general (the title doesn't always go to a man, after all, and not even a human being sometimes), and Giuliani.

But out of these four, who actually did great things that had a profound effect on history? While Guiliani, Bush, and the firefighters certainly did good things, they were only reacting to history, not making it themselves. Conversely, OBL did a terrible thing, but it was a great thing, in the sense that it was probably the most earth-shattering, historical event of the year (which, all told, was relatively boring otherwise).

People need to pull their heads out of their collective... um... rears... and realize three things:

• Great != Good
• People who do historically significant things are not always good, just as history is not always good.
• Recording history accurately is more important than pleasing people or selling magazines.

Then again, I suppose no one has yet managed to underestimate the intelligence of the general American populace. Shame, though, that one of the most prestigious newsmagazines in the US has now proven itself just another whore...

[otis52]

Originally posted by Rampage:
<STRONG>


otis52, do you think that just because Time chose not to feature him as man of they year, all his followers will just disappear and September 11th will have never happened?

</STRONG>

Are you serious or just ignorant ? Of course they won't disappear. More than likely they will only get smater and strike harder in the future. As far as Sept. 11 is concerened that day will allways be in the hearts and minds of people around the world who were affected by this tragedy. By the way what was the point behind your question?

[ 12-26-2001: Message edited by: otis52 ]

[anarkisst]

Originally posted by Millennium:
<STRONG>Well, there's another magazine I won't read again. As yet another once-respectable American institution shows just how little integrity it has in the wake of September 11...

For the record, there were four candidates this year: OBL, Bush, firefighters and rescue workers in general (the title doesn't always go to a man, after all, and not even a human being sometimes), and Giuliani.

But out of these four, who actually did great things that had a profound effect on history? While Guiliani, Bush, and the firefighters certainly did good things, they were only reacting to history, not making it themselves. Conversely, OBL did a terrible thing, but it was a great thing, in the sense that it was probably the most earth-shattering, historical event of the year (which, all told, was relatively boring otherwise).

People need to pull their heads out of their collective... um... rears... and realize three things:

• Great != Good
• People who do historically significant things are not always good, just as history is not always good.
• Recording history accurately is more important than pleasing people or selling magazines.

Then again, I suppose no one has yet managed to underestimate the intelligence of the general American populace. Shame, though, that one of the most prestigious newsmagazines in the US has now proven itself just another whore...</STRONG>

I really had to read this over and over...and disagree. Why? Well, guess who got man of the year for 1941?

Franklin D. Roosevelt

Nope, it wasn't Emperor Hirohito or Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto,
commander of the Japanese fleet that attacked Pearl Harbor...it was the person who had to react to the evil that was placed upon us.

I'm surprised in a way that George W. didn't get it. But in a ways having Giullianni was also a choice that combined many others within the NYC structure of things (FDNY, POP, NYPD, EMT and administration people). Like you said; "the title doesn't always go to a man, after all, and not even a human being sometimes". Well, then it's Rudi because he represents all of NYC on fateful September 11th.

[Joshua]

I hope those blankets of righteous indignation keep you folks warm at night...

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Joshua:
<STRONG>I hope those blankets of righteous indignation keep you folks warm at night...</STRONG>

I'm unclear what this means, but since its not directed at me I'll leave it to someone else to figure out...

to the rest of the thread, I think who Time picks as man of the year should not be a popularity contest or a political correctness stricture. However, they are certainly free to pick whomever they desire. It's their magazine.

Heck, I don't agree with who Sports Illustrated picks for their cover for the swimsuit issue usually, either. (though I'd like to have to do personal interviews to come up with that decisions...but I digress...)

I think that what should have been picked was "terrorism". They've picked non-human things or ideas before. I think that would correctly peg what has affected the world more significantly than anything else this year without giving attention to or appearing to glorify Osama.

It is, after what has supposedly been responsible for 9/11, and the war against it has galvanized some countries against other countries, independent of the head of Al Queda....let's not forget, there are over 160 known terrorist organizations at work in the world today, only one of them is headed by Osama.

[Troll]

Amazing how quickly we all forgot about the other Giuliani that made the news this year.

[Demonhood]

found this kind of funny: apparently everyone in this AI thread disagrees with us (us being the majority of people that have replied here). go figure.