TIME's introduction to Person of the Year says 'For capturing and highlighting a global sense of restless promise, for upending governments and conventional wisdom, for combining the oldest of techniques with the newest of technologies to shine a light on human dignity and, finally, for steering the planet on a more democratic though sometimes more dangerous path for the 21st century, the Protestor is TIME's 2011 Person of the Year.'
And adds 'History often emerges only in retrospect. Events become significant only when looked back on.' About the protests, it says 'The protests marked the rise of a new generation. Technology mattered, but it was not a technological revolution. Social networks did not cause these movements, but they kept them alive and connected. This was not a wired revolution; it was a human one, of hearts and minds, the oldest technology of all.'
Not all of TIME's choices in the past have been deserving, and many were outright wrong, and several of them biased toward America (a fact acknowledged by TIME in the past). TIME's definition of who should be Person of the Year is one who has made the maximum impact during the year. Julian Assange impacted more than Mark Zuckerberg last year. American Presidents who have won, at times twice, like George Bush, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, have been stupid choices, couldn't they find anyone else?; Osama bin Laden should've been, when Rudy Guiliani was. And why was Kate Middleton in the list this year?
This year has been fair. Many had expected Steve Jobs to make the list, but he did not make any impact this year. TIME has chosen a common noun, as it has done in the past, like The Computer, The Middle Class, Young People, GI Joe etc. (YOU was a terrible choice). The Protestor has made the news this year, without doubt. And shall continue to have impact going forward.
And adds 'History often emerges only in retrospect. Events become significant only when looked back on.' About the protests, it says 'The protests marked the rise of a new generation. Technology mattered, but it was not a technological revolution. Social networks did not cause these movements, but they kept them alive and connected. This was not a wired revolution; it was a human one, of hearts and minds, the oldest technology of all.'
Not all of TIME's choices in the past have been deserving, and many were outright wrong, and several of them biased toward America (a fact acknowledged by TIME in the past). TIME's definition of who should be Person of the Year is one who has made the maximum impact during the year. Julian Assange impacted more than Mark Zuckerberg last year. American Presidents who have won, at times twice, like George Bush, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, have been stupid choices, couldn't they find anyone else?; Osama bin Laden should've been, when Rudy Guiliani was. And why was Kate Middleton in the list this year?
This year has been fair. Many had expected Steve Jobs to make the list, but he did not make any impact this year. TIME has chosen a common noun, as it has done in the past, like The Computer, The Middle Class, Young People, GI Joe etc. (YOU was a terrible choice). The Protestor has made the news this year, without doubt. And shall continue to have impact going forward.
No comments:
Post a Comment