Let's put the TIME person of the year into perspective

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.

http://www.time.com/time/personoftheyear/archive/photohistory/notorious.html

So, fellow DUers'...Bush winning person of the year is not necessarily a vote in favor of his leadership ability or his policies.
And given the criteria the editors use, I can see why Bush won. Remember - newsworthy does not mean PRAISEWORTHY.

Thoughts anyone??? We should not allow the repub's to frame this in their favor.

:wtf:?

Time had polls shortly after the awful Repub bund rally of 11% and 12%. Those "leads" then vanished into thin air, never to be seen again.

Note: Happily, I don't have a Time subscription to cancel. And there is a ZERO chance that I'll ever have one.

and Stalin.....and Khomeni.....

Bush is controversial in his own right - we do not need to compare him to anyone....only how his leadership skills and policies are negatively afecting the majority of peoples worldwide.

...this morning after he interviewed David Brooder. It was refreshing to see Robert being featured on C-Span.

My personal opinion of Time Magazine and the editorials and other opinions that Time has carried over the years is that the magazine is clearly biased toward the conservative right of this country. I just wish the other weekly news magazines would challenge Time on their choices because if newsworthiness (meaning what makes the most news print and therefore the largest advertising dollars) is going to be the main criteria for selecting "Person of the Year", then why not put Scott Peterson on the cover.

There has not been a week that has gone by the entire year that his trial wasn't sensationalized in some manner or another by the media. And it was certainly used to distract from equally worthy news features such as the vote recounts by state and the broadcasts of the electoral appointments around the country.

Put the punk in perspective!

http://www.denverindyvoice.org/Myth_of_divided_america.htm

TIME's choice for POTY in 2001 does not hold up to their own criteria.
TIME did it to keep their subscriptions in 2001, and I think they did it to keep their subscriptions in 2004.