Man of the Year

I’ve been unsure of what to think about Time Magazine naming “American Soldier” the 2003 Man of the Year. Although they’re not a bad as Newsweek, I haven’t been too impressed with them lately.

Greyhawk at Mudville Gazette, home of the Miliblogs webring, posted something that made up my mind.

Comments

  1. The kind of mindless, knee-jerk response to anything that doesn’t appear to agree with one’s own opinion is doing this country and world a good deal of harm. Let’s all pile on that train, eh?

  2. The creator of the ‘Time Can Kiss My Ass’ collage of covers is a US soldier who has elected to turn down the honor/notation of Time Magazine’s award. I believe that he has very good reasons for doing so. How is this a ‘mindless, knee-jerk response’? IMHO, Time Magazine is either A) Trying to sell (out) extra copies by supporting the troops while blasting what they’re doing, B) Honoring the troops in an attempt to cleverly criticize the administration/leadership that’s got them into the ‘mess’ in Iraq, or C) Both. All cheap shots, and my money’s on ‘C.’ To me, it smacks of false patriotism to sell more issues. Time disagreeing with the administration is good journalism, but disagreeing with that journalism is ‘doing this country and world a great deal of harm?’ Come on.

  3. I certainly support the creator expressing his opinion. I don’t know how useful it is in furthering debate that leads anywhere productive, but I support him expressing himself. I do question whether he, or ,more so, some of the other posters really understand what the point of the ‘award’ is. I’m wondering how many of them read the articles involved. I wonder how many of them are willing to consider opinions different than their own. This is the knee-jerk stuff I’m talking about and it unfortunately seems omnipresent. While I’m wondering, I wonder if these people who are so angry at Time and the other ____ media are die-hard free-marketeers that believe all is fair in business and that the market place makes the best decisions. I wonder if they would consider that some well written letters to the editors might show that there are others in agreement and the editors might modify their editorial approach. I wonder if they could stand having a discussion where everyone gets to speak and name-calling doesn’t fly.

  4. Mac Guy, you think that a soldier disagreeing with Time’s position on what’s been doing over the last year is a ‘knee-jerk’ reaction? This is all about selling magazines. *THAT* isn’t a knee-jerk reaction, that’s what Time does. If Time thought putting Blix, or that little freak from the DPRK on the cover would sell a few more rags, they’d do it in a heartbeat. There’s any honor in the selection, the guy who put that response together knows it, and doesn’t want it because he’s not happy about things the magazine has said in previous issues (Which were also written specifically for the purpose of selling more copies.)

  5. So what is news, then? What is editorializing? What is propaganda? What is entertainment? What is capitalism? How do you know what the cover decision was about? You have an opinion, as do others. That is great. it doesn’t make it the truth. My point was more about whether there is any real conversation going on or just looking for things to agree or disagree with. I can say the Republicans can kiss my ass for thinking they know what is best for me without actually listening to anyone but the party elite. And I can equally say the Democrats can kiss my ass for thinking they know what is best for me without actually listening to anyone but the party elite. And I can organize a boycott of Campbell’s soup because they advertise on NBC which is owned by GE and the sold my grandma a refrigerator that broke down after only 22 years. Jerks. That’ll teach them. We’re too damned polarized and factionalized and cranky to actually consider anything that doesn’t strike us as correct upon first review. This method of public discourse only entrrenches the current system, which I don’t think anyone very well, except those in power and I don’t mean republicans. I mean the political elite of both sides, not the average citizen.

  6. I long for the good old days when everyone was so much nicer to everyone else, politicians told the truth, business owners weren’t greedy, and those with money didn’t have any more power than those without. The days when everyone with different opinions sat down with their enemies and resolved their differences calmly without resorting to name-calling or photoshopped magazine covers. Sure, the ‘Time Can Kiss My Ass’ is incendiary. That apparently was the point, made by someone who apparently has strong personal feelings about the matter and is in a position to have a personal reaction to the ‘award,’ rather than simply ranting because of his political agenda. That doesn’t make him ‘right,’ of course. But, as they say, it’s a free country. And forget the Man of the Year. Hitler was the Man of the Century. I wonder how that issue sold? And is *that* why sales of Campbell’s soup are down so much?

  7. I guess my issue was most with the ‘mindless, knee-jerk’ comment. I mean, if they guy that actually GETS an award can’t comment on receiving it without his reaction being called ‘mindless’, then is there any possible strong, symbolic statement he could make that WOULDN’T be ‘knee-jerk’ in your opinion? I mean, who’s in a better position than him? Certainly not me. I thought Time was out to make money before this issue, and it’s not like they changed my mind with this strategem. BTW, I work for a company that tries to make money as well. It’s not like all companies looking for a profit are evil or anything. (Except maybe my company, they might be evil.)