So, he's the "Person of the Year. " That's just about right, like it or not (though you could make a strong case for Rove or other strategists). Except it reminded me that Time is still repeating the same lame criteria for the award, which no longer apply.

This weekend the editors were all over the media saying that the definition of the award is the person who makes the biggest impact -- "good or bad." This used to be true. Plenty of villains were Man of the Year back in the day, and no one blinked. But in 2001, the "Person of the Year" -- by Time's own definition -- was unquestionably Osama bin Laden. Instead, in a move designed to stave off a PR backlash from people too stupid to understand that the POY isn't necessarily an "award," Rudy Guiliani was chosen.

I don't think anyone's going to try to make the argument that Rudy changed the world for the better more than Osama bin Laden changed it for the worse. Maybe it was just that it was still too close to 9/11 and emotions were on the surface. More likely, in today's political and media environments, they just don't have the balls to name a villain POY.

Anyway, that's all water under the thingie now. But this weekend's constant yammering about the standards reminded me that they should really just change them to eliminate the "bad" element.

0 comments. Leave one!