Breaking: TIME's Person of the Year is Putin

[doxieone]

Source: http://kdka.com/national/Time.person.year.2.614065.html

Time Magazine Names Putin Person Of The Year
NEW YORK (CBS) ― Time magazine named Vladimir Putin its Person of the Year.

The Russian president was named for his force of personality and singular focus on the country's stability, said Richard Stengel, Time magazine's managing editor.

Nobel laureate Al Gore, author J.K. Rowling, China's President Hu Jintao and Gen. David Petraeus were also among the top contenders for the honor.

Each year, the magazine's editors select a significant individual or group who has embodied an important issue in the year's news and daily life.

Time's Man of the Year issue was first published 80 years ago. It changed to Person of the Year in 1999, when notable newsmakers included the country's first female Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright; Jordan's Queen Noor and author J.K. Rowling.
(© MMVII, CBS


No link yet.

[RL3AO]

1. Here is a direct link to why Time chose him.

6 pages worth of reasons.

http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/personoftheyear/article/0,28804,1690753_1690757_1696150,00.html

[doxieone]

2. Bush is probably gloating that Gore...

..did not get it.

[Strelnikov_]

19. ..

[alcibiades_mystery]

3. Sounds about right

[BeyondGeography]

4. That's more than a little eery...He has journalists killed

Freedom of speech ain't exactly his thing.

[RL3AO]

5. Remember it is not an award for the best person, but for the person who made the biggest impact.

That is why Hitler won it twice and probably should have been person of the century. People also feel bin Laden should have gotten it in 2001.

[BeyondGeography]

6. I know...I haven't read the write-up yet

and I know Russians mostly care about the economic gains they're experiencing right now. I hope they address it in the piece.

[ccpup]

7. not true

I just returned from Europe and spent a very interesting afternoon with a group of people, several of them from St. Petersburg and Moscow and what I found was they're less focused on the money some Russians are making as they are on the Government being run by the Mafia. Yep, the Mafia.

The Russian people have few rights, they have no media, they're getting to the point where they risk arrest if they speak ill of Putin in the street. The economic gains you sited are being made by a small handful -- who are becoming incredibly rich! -- while the rest continue to struggle.

When your President just elected himself to Prime Minister after appointing his favorite puppet as President -- thereby ensuring his continued stranglehold on Power --, how much money you're making isn't exactly something to celebrate. And many of those I had the pleasure of speaking with are keenly aware of that.

Unfortunately, the country they could come to to escape the reach of a brutal Government and live a life of freedom -- that would have been us several years ago -- no longer exists.

[BeyondGeography]

9. This is two years old but it shows you the mindset

==By an overwhelming 81%-14% margin, Russians say a strong economy is more important than a good democracy. The desire for a healthy economy is strong and consistent across all segments of Russian society--men and women, young and old, and every socioeconomic subgroup agree that, if forced to choose, they would pick prosperity over democracy.==

http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=250

I don't blame them; they've been poor and rich is better. Security and stability are two other factors that free Putin's hand with the press. The Time write-up isn't available yet, but they point to stability as one of the reasons for their selection.

Again, given the conscience-free zone that our own media too often inhabits, this is a slightly chilling choice.

[fasttense]

8. There was a small window of opportunity to convert Russia into a Democracy,

but the World Bank was too busy making billions for corporations and pushing their "free trade" agenda to bother over a silly thing like Democracy. While the likes of George Soros and the Russian Oligarchy were busy making billions, Putin was busy turning Russia back into the USSR.

The country wants stability now because they were forced to accept WTO loans on the condition of turning their country into a "free trade" paradise. "Free trade" created havoc and corruption at every level and the Russian people are suffering for it now. Look carefully at Russia, this is the plan that our ignorant corporatists have for the US.

[UTUSN]

10. Shouldn't the revelation of POY----*NOT*---be a surprise?!1 Shouldn't who had the most

impact throughout the year be obvious to everybody's consensus?!1

[erpowers]

11. Wrong Choice

I contend Putin was the wrong choice in that he did not have much of an affect on the entire world. I thought the person named was supposed to be the person who had the most worldwide affect. I think this year Al Gore had the most worldwide affect. I do not say that just because I like Al Gore; I say it because he was everywhere this year.

[SharonRB]

12. What's up with that?

Gore certainly deserved it more.

[gauguin57]

13. I was SURE it was gonna be Hannah Montanna.

That girl was in the news more than Putin and Gore combined.

Should have been Gore. Oscar, Emmy, Nobel Peace Prize. Everywhere trying to save our planet.

Putin should have been No. 2.

[kskiska]

14. It's good to be the king

[shain from kane]

15. I'm sure this choice will sell a lot of issues. NOT.

[boricua79]

22. Did you see the cover?

The scariest scowl I've ever seen since Nosferatu!

[kirby]

16. Did the editors of Time look into this eyes? n/t

[Marie26]

17. Uggghhh

I guess Time has no problem with oligarchies & police states?

[Thothmes]

23. No they dont

Stalin, Hitler, Mao, GHW Bush have all been named person of the year

[Marie26]

24. But not Bin Laden

So there's some lines Time won't cross. I don't like the idea of glorifying dictators & totalitarian regimes by naming the leader "Person of the Year" - especially in this case, where Russia's oligarchy is just a more progressed version of our own.

[JohnLocke]

25. It's NOT glorification because it's not an honor

It's for the most influential/biggest newsmaker, not the best person: "the greatest impact on world events, for better or worse."

Time singled out Mr Putin as a person who had had the greatest impact on world events, for better or worse. "He's not a good guy, but he's done extraordinary things," said Time's managing editor, Richard Stengel. "He's a new tsar of Russia, and he's dangerous in the sense...

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/for-better-or-worse-russia-has-a-new-tsar/2007/12/20/1197740468183.html

[Marie26]

26. But it was glorification when Guiliani was chosen

The 9/11 hero. That's what I mean - it's referred to as a title, almost a prize - "Man of the Year." Sometimes it's an honor, like when Bono was named as the "Good Samaritan" for his work in Africa. And then suddenly it's not & they can name horrible people if they want to. It's totally amoral. Someone like Putin only cares about importance, power, notority, & Time helps to give him that.

[MilesColtrane]

29. Take it up with the Time's editors.

Most people seem pretty clear on the concept of their "______ of the Year" issue.

[Marie26]

30. Well, I'm taking it up here.

Free speech, and all. :)

[MilesColtrane]

32. We'll get right on changing Time's policy for you then.

;)

[Marie26]

34. Great!

And everytime anybody says that they don't like something that the media's done, or a politician's done, I'll be sure to post snarky, superior comments like "take it up with them".

[Lilith Velkor]

18. You mean it's not another pandering feelgood crap issue this year?

Heavens to Betsy. The stupid people who think this is an award aren't gonna like this one.

[liberalpragmatist]

21. I know! I was *pleasantly* surprised

Not because I'm a Putin fan. But for once, the "Person of the Year" is actually a person of major political/social significance. And it's an actual person! Not a group of people, not a composite, not a thing. Nor is it some important figure who's a feel-good choice -- someone who's important to be sure but hardly the biggest newsmaker of the year.

Moreover, it's a choice with international significance. TIME's international coverage (and news coverage in general) has really gone down the tube. Look through the archives for their cover stories and international coverage from the '50s and '60s. The NORM was to name some major international figure or world leader as their person. For example, there were numerous cover stories on the Prime Ministers of India, the Foreign Minister of China, the British PM, the Japanese PM, the leader of Eastern European Countries, France, etc.

[Sequoia]

20. Praise be to God it isn't that selfish J.K. Rowling !!!

So her dopey little fairy tale books sells for like, what? a million bucks? Then there's that story from India where a Potter castel was constructed and she wants money for it!?? I will never read her stuff. But Putin now....that's a good choice and high time too!

[Bucky]

27. Shit, I knew I shouldn't have put my money on K-Fed

But congratulations to Vlad Putin. I understand reporters in Russia are absolutely aglow over him.

[JNelson6563]

28. Interesting choice

I think Putin is a very complex and interesting person. That doesn't mean I agree with his "reforms" but he does have a depth and an extemely strong, quiet confidence about him.

Julie

[Uncle Joe]

31. Time has spent too much capital libeling Al Gore over the years,

they couldn't possibly eat that much crow, worthless piece of shit rag, I know one thing, I'll never buy another one.

[Deja Q]

33. That's some sort of a joke, I'd hope? I mean, let's look at some of the candidates:

* Vladimir Putin - he poisons his own people. Charming. Real charming. (not)

* J K Rowling - wrote a pallid little fantasy book and now some people think she's more important than the IT and bioengineering jobs being offshored.

* Hu Jianto - runs China, a communist state that has ownership of everything. He is ultimately responsible for the products his country exports. Products that have harmed or killed all over the world.

(Edited: Subject line)