Persons of the Year -- Huh?

Over seventy-five years ago, TIME magazine started its tradition of selecting a "Man of the Year," later renamed "Person of the Year." Charles Lindbergh was the first to be given this recognition in the January 2, 1928, issue of the magazine.

Over the years, TIME has made some bizarre choices.Complete List From 1927-2004

According to the website:

TIME's choices for Person of the Year are often controversial. Editors are asked to choose the person or thing that had the greatest impact on the news, for good or ill—guidelines that leave them no choice but to select a newsworthy—not necessarily praiseworthy—cover subject.



In 2001, although Rudy Giuliani was chosen as the Person of the Year, there was outrage over the possibility that TIME would make Osama bin Laden its end of the year coverboy.

I think the controversy arises because many people think of the title as an honor. The confusion is understandable; but it should be remembered that it's not an award. According to TIME's own criteria, the Person of the Year is not meant to be a stamp of approval.

The editors are supposed to choose the person or thing that had the greatest impact on the news, not necessarily a nice guy. TIME's 1979 choice, Ayatullah Khomeini, or the 1938 choice, Adolf Hitler, certainly reveal that making the cover is not necessarily a recognition of positive accomplishments.

Nonetheless, when a Hitler sort gets the nod from TIME, the decision is deemed inappropriate. It shouldn't be, but it is. Again, many people tend to think of being selected by TIME as an honor.

That aside, the editors have not only made some controversial selections, but some that were just plain stupid.

Some embarrassing choices:

1982 - The Computer

1988 - Endangered Earth (as "Planet of the Year")

I think opening up the field to include "things" was a mistake. How could the Clapper have been overlooked?

"Planet of the Year"? How lame! Maybe I'm letting personal feelings get in the way. I guess I hold a grudge because I thought Pluto was more deserving in '88.

Although not nearly as weird as the 1982 and 1988 choices, I question TIME's judgment for the 2005 title holders.


Bono and Bill and Melinda Gates were this year's picks.

Nancy Gibbs explains:
For being shrewd about doing good, for rewiring politics and re-engineering justice, for making mercy smarter and hope strategic and then daring the rest of us to follow, Bill and Melinda Gates and Bono are TIME's Persons of the Year.

I commend Bill and Melinda Gates for their generosity.

I admire Bono for lobbying world leaders to do what they can to "make poverty history" and for his raising of awareness.

Unquestionably, these three individuals have done good deeds and there is less suffering in the world because of their commitment to use their status and power to make it happen. They deserve recognition for being a tremendous positive force.

BUT--

TIME editors cannot be serious about considering them to be the "person or thing that had the greatest impact on the news, for good or ill."

Bill and Melinda Gates have donated truly enormous amounts of money. Bono has succeeded in convincing the most powerful leaders in the world to see things his way, and provide aid, and forgive debt. Together, they've made a dramatic difference in so many lives.

I just don't think that they were the figures that had the greatest impact on the news.

As wonderful as billions in debt relief and vaccinations are, that was not the most influential story to come out of 2005.

Although the accomplishments of these Persons of the Year are far-reaching and praiseworthy, I think happenings in the Middle East were of much greater significance this past year.

I want to make it clear that I'm in no way diminishing what the trio achieved or the significance of their accomplishments to the millions of people directly affected by their work, or the ramifications of their efforts for the rest of the world.

However, I don't see how TIME could overlook the players in Iraq.

The emerging democracy in a country that had been held hostage by a brutal dictator and murderous regime has had a far greater impact on the news in 2005 than anything else.

If I could choose the Person of the Year, it would be the Iraqi voter -- hands down.

A free Iraq will change the dynamics in the Middle East. Freedom in that region will choke off the ideology that breeds terrorism. It will wither and die. As progress is made, the world order is being altered.

TIME's editors chose to ignore that. As the Iraqi elections exhibited, fear and oppression were replaced with courage and self-determination in 2005. We are witnessing a rebirth in Iraq and hope for a lasting peace throughout the Middle East.

I suspect that TIME did not want to acknowledge that.

All that the editors really need to do to determine the person or "thing" that most impacted the news would be to look through the 2005 issues of their publication.

Who or what dominated?

Apparently, they don't read their own magazine.

It could have been much worse. TIME editors could have gone completely off the deep end and chosen Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame as the Persons of the Year.
I have no doubt that they both would have been anxious to do the cover shoot.