My response from Time Magazine

[Laurab]

Don't know if anyone else received one or not, if this is a dupe, I apologize (I'm a newbie). I found it quite interesting - Note "and to the latter":

Dear Reader:

We regret your disappointment over the selection of President Bush as
TIME's Person of the Year. But perhaps we should remind you of the
traditional standard by which the editors make their annual choice.
The Person of the Year is not an award or a tribute. The question at
the center of the selection process is, Who or what, for better or
worse, has affected the way we live today? The answer to that
question could be a force for good (for example, Winston Churchill,
Man of the Year, 1940; Dwight Eisenhower, 1944) or for evil (Adolf
Hitler, Man of the Year, 1939; Ayatullah Khomeini, 1979). And to the
latter, President George W. Bush must be added for 2004 -- there is
no one else whose agenda and actions in the past year had such
universal impact. As managing editor Jim Kelly noted in his Letter
From the Editor, Bush has had his highs and lows over the past four
years, but in the end he prevailed in the 2004 election by
"persuading a majority of voters this time around that he deserved to
be in the White House for another four years."

Thank you for writing. We appreciated having the opportunity to
respond to your concerns.

Best wishes.


TIME Letters

[Dogmudgeon]

1. Laura B?

Pickles? Is that you?

--p!

[Laurab]

17. Lol - not pickles, sorry (NT)

[Not_Giving_Up]

2. Oh, man...I'd have to respond back to that one with

He didn't persuade a majority of voters....Where's Time's coverage on the voting irregularities?

[Kurovski]

3. "persuading a majority of voters ..."

Is that what Time is calling vote fraud now?

[donheld]

4. Welcome to DU Laurab

:hi:

[Laurab]

18. Thanks! NT

[Demit]

5. That's not a bad reply! They all but acknowledge he's a force for evil...

[Gin]

10. I agree......they lumped him in with Hitler and the Ayatullah.

Ayatullah Khomeini, 1979). And to the
latter, President George W. Bush must be added for 2004 -- there is
no one else whose agenda and actions in the past year had such
universal impact.

[lancdem]

6. I've always known Time's designation

went to people like Hitler as well as those who've done good. However, that last line about persuading a majority of voters he deserved four more years makes me sick. I'm not sure I'll ever get over what happened on Nov. 2. :(

[Hobarticus]

7. "Person of the Year" definitely has an honorific ring to it...

If it really is just an acknowledgment of someone who has "has affected the way we live today", then change the damn name to reflect that.

I ain't buying their explanation.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

8. Get out your sharpies! A Hitler moustache on every cover you can

get away with. So buy a few copies if you get caught. It's worth this Proper-ganda opportunity just handed to us by Time.

When Newsweek had his ugly mug on the cover after Nov. 2 I walked into a supermarket late at night with few employees around and 'Hitlered' every copy at the checkout stands without even looking around, went about my shopping as if nothing unusual had happened.

Well worth the chance to replace propaganda with Proper-ganda.

[Demit]

11. ooo, you're so bad! I love it!!!

[katmondoo]

13. I use labels, same thing ;I go about my shopping as innocent as can be.

My best label message came from a DUer." Bush- the Maniacal, Calculating Murdering Tyrant." A good one to post on Time Mag

[chomskysright]

12. love the idea...gonna do just that tonight...taking my big black pen

[Hong Kong Cavalier]

9. Spread this around:

TIME'S pick for POTY 2001 doesn't live up to THEIR OWN STANDARDS stated in the above e-mail. Hell, I'm thinking that their 2002 pick doesn't live up either.

Rudy Giuliani? (FOr 2001)

(I'm sounding like a broken record here considering this is the third different thread I've posted this in, but TIME's excuse is bullshit.)

[EVDebs]

14. CIA and the Media: Carl Bernstein's Oct 1977 Rolling Stone piece

seems apropo for an update right now, don't you think ? See
http://www.class.uidaho.edu/mickelsen/Media%20Readings/Berstein%20-%20CIA%20and%20the%20Media.htm
with the snippet :

"• Time and Newsweek magazines. According to CIA and Senate sources, Agency files contain written agreements with former foreign correspondents and stringers for both the weekly news magazines. The same sources refused to say whether the CIA has ended all its associations with individuals who work for the two publications. Allen Dulles often interceded with his good friend, the late Henry Luce, founder of Time and Life magazines, who readily allowed certain members of his staff to work for the Agency and agreed to provide jobs and credentials for other CIA operatives who lacked journalistic expe­rience."

By the way, check out the great work CNN did with its Army embedded Pysops in the newsroom during the 2000 election at
http://www.counterpunch.org/cnnpsyops.html .... and you thought they only worked with the Army recently ? Maybe they're there for the 2004 election for all we'd know.

Time Magazine owes us all an apology.

[EVDebs]

21. Wait ! This could be a media "DISINFORMATION" campaign ...

Check this scenario... the military psy-ops wanted us to ROFLOAO ! This is merely a disinformation campaign. The military intell/psy-ops "Col. Flaggs" out there really do have a sense of humor after all !!!!!

[Laelth]

15. What a bunch o' bull!

"And to the latter, President George W. Bush must be added for 2004."

If that's true, why does the accompanying essay read like a fawning tribute to our great leader? If Time thinks he's evil, they should say so.

I need to cancel my subscription. :mad:

-Laelth

[Laurab]

19. I did cancel my subscription -

then I wrote to the editor and told him why (posted somewhere on here). Did that yesterday, got the response today. I agree - I think they're trying to have it both ways here - I doubt that email is going out to anyone who's praising their selection.

[pamela]

16. Is this for real?

Time just acknowledged that Bush is evil and lumped him in with Hitler and Khomeini? Cool.

[jmatthan]

20. Please send this letter to

every liberal media talk show host that you know.

Also get it out to every mainstream media host that you can.

The lumping of Bush with Hitler is probably one of the most realistic assessments that they did!!

Do not keep this letter under wraps, PLEASE.

Jacob Matthan
Oulu, Finland

[LynnTheDem]

22. "for GOOD...or for EVIL...and to the LATTER, bush must be added"

And THAT is what TIME should have written in their MotY article.

[peekaloo]

23. tee hee. Assaholah Boo$h, our own Hitler.

[Catchawave]

24. Time called him EVIL, I mean

"....could be a force for good (for example, Winston Churchill,
Man of the Year, 1940; Dwight Eisenhower, 1944) or for evil (Adolf
Hitler, Man of the Year, 1939; Ayatullah Khomeini, 1979). And to the
latter, President George W. Bush must be added for 2004 -- there is
no one else whose agenda and actions in the past year had such
universal impact."

****
Looks like they sent boatloads of this letter out :evilgrin:
Every poll I've seen has been about 70-30 disagreeing with their choice. I bet they're losing alot of subscriptions.

[Senator Lamb]

25. um, they are hypocrites

they seemed nice in their response, but if they held true to this standard, Bin Laden would have person of year in 2001, not Guiliani. Bin Laden attacks have altered the course of American foreign policy forever and defined politics since, Mayor Guiliani didnt. i agree * sould be man of the year, but then bin laden should have in 2001. they were pussies though and caved into pressure.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

28. Time is cheap toilet paper to me!

[LiberalFighter]

26. Time of Year

Year Person
1927 Charles Augustus Lindbergh
1928 Walter P. Chrysler
1929 Owen D. Young
1930 Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
1931 Pierre Laval
1932 Franklin Delano Roosevelt
1933 Hugh Samuel Johnson
1934 Franklin Delano Roosevelt
1935 Haile Selassie
1936 Mrs. Wallis Warfield Simpson
1937 Generalissimo & Mme Chiang Kai-Shek
1938 Adolf Hitler
1939 Joseph Stalin
1940 Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill
1941 Franklin Delano Roosevelt
1942 Joseph Stalin
1943 George Catlett Marshall
1944 Dwight David Eisenhower
1945 Harry Truman
1946 James F. Byrnes
1947 George Catlett Marshall
1948 Harry Truman
1949 Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill
1950 American Fighting-Man
1951 Mohammed Mossadegh
1952 Elizabeth II
1953 Konrad Adenauer
1954 John Foster Dulles
1955 Harlow Herbert Curtice
1956 Hungarian Freedom Fighter
1957 Nikita Krushchev
1958 Charles De Gaulle
1959 Dwight David Eisenhower
1960 U.S. Scientists
1961 John Fitzgerald Kennedy
1962 Pope John XXIII
1963 Martin Luther King Jr.
1964 Lyndon B. Johnson
1965 General William Childs Westmoreland
1966 Twenty-Five and Under
1967 Lyndon B. Johnson
1968 Astronauts Anders, Borman and Lovell
1969 The Middle Americans
1970 Willy Brandt
1971 Richard Milhous Nixon
1972 Nixon and Kissinger
1973 John J. Sirica
1974 King Faisal
1975 American Women
1976 Jimmy Carter
1977 Anwar Sadat
1978 Teng Hsiao-P'ing
1979 Ayatullah Khomeini
1980 Ronald Reagan
1981 Lech Walesa
1982 The Computer
1983 Ronald Regan & Yuri Andropov
1984 Peter Ueberroth
1985 Deng Xiaoping
1986 Corazon Aquino
1987 Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev
1988 Endangered Earth
1989 Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev
1990 The Two George Bushes
1991 Ted Turner
1992 Bill Clinton
1993 The Peacemakers
1994 Pope John Paul II
1995 Newt Gingrich
1996 Dr. David Ho
1997 Andy Grove
1998 Bill Clinton and Kenneth Starr
1999 Jeff Bezos

[Blue_Roses]

27. I still can't believe this is the best TIME could come up with

"Who or what, for better or worse, has affected the way we live today..." Well, one thing is for sure he has affected the way we live. I have never seen Americans so divided, which definitely puts him in the "worse" catagory! Unfortunately, this little "photo shoot" just makes him more cocky, more arrogant, and more divisive.

[dansolo]

29. B ut they chickened out in 2001.

Their explanation flies in the face of their cowardice in 2001, when they selected Rudy Giuliani over Osama bin Laden.

[fortyfeetunder]

30. F**k tradition!

Or why couldn't they be just frank and say this mofo fucked up this country financially and diplomatically, in ways never seen before in its 227 years of democracy.