Master Index of Archived Threads


Time's Person of the Year

G-Fafif Dec 17 2008 10:56 AM

I would have thought Johan Santana, but no, [url=http://www.time.com/time/specials/2008/personoftheyear/article/0,31682,1861543_1865068,00.html:4lnpw3pl]it's President-Elect Obama[/url:4lnpw3pl].

Benjamin Grimm Dec 17 2008 11:01 AM

I guess he had a pretty good year too. I wonder when the last time we had a year where a brand new President was elected and that new President wasn't Time's Person (or Man) of the Year.

Edgy DC Dec 17 2008 11:01 AM

Surprise runner up. Soupcan's douchebag neighbor.

metirish Dec 17 2008 11:05 AM

After my subscription of time runs out I am not renewing , this weeks issue is a "lists" issue , I like lists but I find the magazine is just not worth reading most issues.

G-Fafif Dec 17 2008 11:16 AM

="Benjamin Grimm"]I guess he had a pretty good year too. I wonder when the last time we had a year where a brand new President was elected and that new President wasn't Time's Person (or Man) of the Year. Not as uncommon as you (or I) would have thought: 1988: Not George Bush (The Endangered Earth; Bush won in '90) 1968: Not Richard Nixon (The Apollo 8 Astronauts; Nixon won in '71, and again in '72 with Kissinger) 1960: Not John Kennedy (U.S. Scientists; JFK won in '61) 1952: Not Dwight Eisenhower (Queen Elizabeth; Ike won in '59, and in '44 as General Eisenhower) 1928: Not Herbert Hoover (Walter Chrysler; Hoover never won it)

Benjamin Grimm Dec 17 2008 11:23 AM

Hmmm. What about the three Presidents in that time frame who ascended to the Presidency before being elected? Truman in 1945, Johnson in 1963, and Ford in 1974. I'm guessing none of those guys won, at least not in those years. Presidents who did win Time and an election in the same year, therefore, would be FDR, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, G.W. Bush, and Obama. (Actually, I can look this up myself! Truman did win in 1945. In 1963 it was Martin Luthur King; Johnson won in 1964 and 1967. King Faisal of Saudi Arabia won in 1974. Ford never won.)

G-Fafif Dec 17 2008 11:27 AM

Nor did Calvin Coolidge, incumbent when the designation was introduced in 1927.

Frayed Knot Dec 17 2008 01:36 PM

Not much of a guessing game this year. Even if the media weren't infatuated w/Barry O it was pretty much a no-brainer. ="metirish"]After my subscription of time runs out I am not renewing , this weeks issue is a "lists" issue , I like lists but I find the magazine is just not worth reading most issues. I canned my 'Newsweek' subscription over their over-the-top coverage of Princess Diana's death. IIRC the next regular issue was almost entirely about her and that was followed by a 'special' edition put out specifically about her story. If I wanted gossip I'd subscribe to 'People'.

Benjamin Grimm Dec 17 2008 01:39 PM

I subscribe to Newsweek. They barely ever mention Princess Diana anymore. I think they've finally moved on.

metirish Dec 17 2008 01:43 PM

I remember well CBS News going to Irish pubs in Woodlawn after Princess Diana's death to get the reaction of Irish people , what they got was indifference but I guess they were hoping for drunken people having a good laugh at what happened.

dgwphotography Dec 17 2008 01:59 PM

="Frayed Knot"]Not much of a guessing game this year. Even if the media weren't infatuated w/Barry O it was pretty much a no-brainer. the media infatuated with Obama? I never saw such a thing.... And I'm sure that their cover artwork is almost identical to some of his campaign posters is purely coincidental, too.

Frayed Knot Dec 17 2008 02:00 PM

="Benjamin Grimm"]I subscribe to Newsweek. They barely ever mention Princess Diana anymore. I think they've finally moved on. I'm still making sure.

Edgy DC Dec 17 2008 02:10 PM

I never subscribed. But it was <i>Newsweek's</i> "Carolyn Style" cover --- attempting spontaneously iconicize Carolyn Bessette Kennedy so they could have an American princess to obsess over and move product with while disguising it as news --- that made clear I never would.

metsguyinmichigan Dec 17 2008 08:21 PM

My Newsweek subscription is expiring soon, and I am leaning toward not renewing it. This year's campaign coverage was so over-the-top partisan that I've lost faith in the magazine. When you have to start taking what you read with a grain of salt, then you have to question why you should be reading it at all.

Valadius Dec 17 2008 09:27 PM

How was it over-the-top partisan?

Frayed Knot Dec 18 2008 06:32 AM

="Edgy DC":21nixeuz]I never subscribed. But it was <i>Newsweek's</i> "Carolyn Style" cover --- attempting spontaneously iconicize Carolyn Bessette Kennedy so they could have an American princess to obsess over and move product with while disguising it as news --- that made clear I never would.[/quote:21nixeuz] That's kind of where I was at too. IIRC the Diana-mania wasn't the sole reason but more like the last straw in what I saw as an increasingly fluff-oriented mindset. Not that they didn't have serious stuff also, but the direction was disturbing. metsguyinmichigan Dec 18 2008 08:42 AM ="Valadius"]How was it over-the-top partisan? Newsweek was roundly criticized for an almost absurd number of flattering Obama covers like this one. Another makes it look like he has a halo. Meanwhile, it used a six-year-old photo of Sarah Palin holding a gun and then the extreme close-up cover that was clearly unnecessary and intended to be unflattering. That's just the covers. At one point the McCain campaign was going to throw the Newsweek reporters off the plane because the coverage was so one-sided. All of which is the magazine's right. If it wants to position itself as a liberal niche magazine, more power to it. But it should be open about it. Newsweek is in the process of reinventing itself, announcing recently a plan to trim something like a million copies from its print run. I think U.S. News and World Report does a decent job. I'm sensitive to the bias stuff because we get accused of it all the time, usually when we're bending over backward to be fair. So when I see a pattern of things, and know how they can be done differently, it gets my goat. Benjamin Grimm Dec 18 2008 09:30 AM Does a magazine's cover necessarily reflect the tone of the editorial content inside, or is it more of a marketing effort to make it stand out on the newsstand? I guess they could have done more "spooky" Obama covers, but that wouldn't have sold as many issues. (Newsweek did, by the way, do a double issue this summer on "WHAT BUSH GOT RIGHT" ) Edgy DC Dec 18 2008 10:23 AM ="Benjamin Grimm":1lwilgrn]Does a magazine's cover necessarily reflect the tone of the editorial content inside, or is it more of a marketing effort to make it stand out on the newsstand? [/quote:1lwilgrn] it doesn't really matter. Editorial placment and illustrations speak as much to partisanship as editorial content. More, I think, because so many more people see the covers of magazines than get to the story on page 18. RealityChuck Dec 18 2008 11:14 AM ="Edgy DC":2y9h16kc] ="Benjamin Grimm":2y9h16kc]Does a magazine's cover necessarily reflect the tone of the editorial content inside, or is it more of a marketing effort to make it stand out on the newsstand? [/quote:2y9h16kc] it doesn't really matter. Editorial placment and illustrations speak as much to partisanship as editorial content. More, I think, because so many more people see the covers of magazines than get to the story on page 18.[/quote:2y9h16kc]Complaints about photographs usually just show the partisanship of the person viewing it. People complained about the Palin photo, but it didn't look particularly unflattering to me. But you see what you want to see. A bunch of Palin partisans started pointing out it was unflattering and suddenly other Palin supporters agreed. But the Palin photos were no more nor no less flattering than those of Obama and McCain and Biden. All too often, Bias in the media = not reflecting our own biases. Edgy DC Dec 18 2008 11:18 AM Am I inferring something about me there? I was speaking broadly as an editor and not as a biased consumer and have no idea what the pictures looked like. G-Fafif Dec 18 2008 11:48 AM ="metsguyinmichigan"]Newsweek was roundly criticized for an almost absurd number of flattering Obama covers [...] All of which is the magazine's right. If it wants to position itself as a liberal niche magazine, more power to it. But it should be open about it. Newsweek ran one of the dumbest cover stories of the year, fretting that Obama was too much of an "elitist," putting a picture of hifalutin arugula on the cover next to a frosty mug of regular-guy beer. I don't think it meant the magazine was biased against Obama, but I do think it meant they rather mindlessly followed an anti-Obama meme, which, sadly, is what newsweeklies too often do. Willets Point Dec 18 2008 01:29 PM I like to wash down my arugula with a cold beer. metsguyinmichigan Dec 18 2008 01:55 PM I bet YS3 has vendors walking up and down the aisles selling overpriced arugula to people in Jeter t-shirts.