Is TIME's 'Person of the Year 2004' choice Pro-* or Anti-*?

[merwin]

As we all know, the Person of the Year can be a good thing or a bad thing, and basically means the person who's had the most influence on world events that year.

Please read the TIME article BEFORE responding to this, as the article seems to go both ways.

TIME Person Of The Year 2004

[7th_Sephiroth]

1. pro

the mag calls him a great strategist

[Telly Savalas]

8. Well if he isn't...

then we must all be some really stupid motherfuckers, since he was inaugurated back in Jan. 2001 and it's gonna happen again in a few weeks.

[Divine Ms Q]

19. He is!

How could he have orchestrated fraud on this level?????

[newyawker99]

21. Hi Divine Ms Q!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Brundle_Fly]

2. Bush bought it.

Time Warner, needing immediate government support, after the whole AOL thing went so sour last year. Sent their lobbyists (yes they have them too) to make a deal to put * on the cover, in exchange for more freedoms in some take over deals in 2005-2006.

This isnt the only thing mind you, like has anyone noticed Ann Coulter on CNN lately?

Time Warner is in the spin zone now.

[SariesNightly]

4. The power of kickbacks

trump the ideals in the fourth estate every damn time, I see.

[Nay]

6. OOOOH, a red-winged blackbird. Love those little guys.

That IS a red-winged blackbird, isn't it?

[nashville_brook]

15. i love them too -- their cranky calls make me happy! n/t

[Osamasux]

7. Had one in the yard 2 years ago

Loved that flash of color when they take to the air.

[Mike Nelson]

3. TIME ends

The quotes I've seen from the article, describing Bush, have lauded him disgustingly.

[anti-fundie]

11. I've never trusted Time.

Wouldn't it be nice for a large-readership magazine to actually call someone out for being what he is? There's no courage in today's MSM.

[zapped 1]

5. this belongs in General Discussion

but thanks for posting it!

[genieroze]

9. Other = TIME is a bunch of morons.

[progressoid]

10. It's just meaningless. They picked Stalin twice not to mention

Clinton (twice), Kruchev, Hitler, etc etc BFD. In 5-10 years TIME will go the way of LOOK and LIFE mags. Who cares.

[stray cat]

12. Wait and see. They think his results will be really good or really bad.

[insane_cratic_gal]

13. Other

Time wanted to capatilize on the "man date" or 51 percent for a sales pitch.

[Vinnie From Indy]

14. TIME thought they could have it both ways

I think TIME figured it could have it both ways. There would be no explanation needed for the Bushistas AND they could prepare a response hinting that he was chosen because of the bad things he has done to all that write to protest.

Time sucks! Plain and simple!

[nashville_brook]

16. was it mike malloy last nite? or the majority report -- ??

read a response from TIME magazine to a woman who wrote a letter objecting to Bush being man of the year. i'm paraphrasing, but the response read that Man Of The Year does not equal the "best" man of the year. Rather they mean it to be the man who had the most impact on the world for better or worse. The last sentence read something like they place Bush in the latter category.

given that, i don't find it inconsistent for the publication to make the article ambiguous in terms of whether he's a good man or a bad man. Their "bias" as MSM is to keep "the ball in the air" and not come down on one side or the other. the TRUTH behind that statement is that as a *BIG business* they CAN'T make a statement one way or the other regarding his morality. they HAVE TO leave the question open or else risk breaking with decorum.

i haven't read it yet. i can't stand to see anything with his face on it.

[shiina]

17. well....

Someone got a response from them saying they picked both good people and evil people...they just picked the person that had the most impact on things that year. But WhyTF was it Guiliani for 2001 and not bin Laden, then? That really suprised me. I've been out of the country for the past 4 years (ha ha! jealous?) so I hadn't seen it before...

But it kinda seems like someone at Time, at least, doesn't like *. I mean, they called the oval office *`s "domain" on the caption and the title of the interview with * is "I have enough power". That's not something most reasonable people would like very much.

[merwin]

18. Precisely the reason for the poll :-)

They go one way of support in one sentence, then another way in the next.

I guess that's how an unbiased article should be written... without any political bias, but the problem is that we all know Time's bias :-)

[Divine Ms Q]

20. Remember....

Although I have serious beef with Time Magazine, I always keep in mind that they also gave Hitler the Person of the Year :)