Top Menu

Time’s Marketing Stunt and Who The Person of the Year Should Have Been

Of the 79 insider attacks from May 2007 to September 2012, military investigators found that 38 percent were likely to have been triggered by personal motives; 6 percent were suspected cases of enemy infiltration; and 14 percent were attributed to co-option, in which insurgents persuaded a member of the security forces to help carry out an attack. The cause of 38 percent of the cases was unknown or still under investigation. – Many insider attacks in Afghanistan stem from personal motives, data suggest

EVERY YEAR it’s the same tired dance.

Who will it be?

The drum roll.

Meanwhile, the entire national media sucks up this obvious marketing ploy by Time magazine, helping them keep their format irrelevancy in view in the new media era. Magazines are receding from prominence year by year, with Playboy recently sending out their latest issue as a January-February edition, signaling subscriptions of the vaunted mag have changed forever.

So, this year Time chooses President Obama.

How very novel, the President! Another establishment power personality, someone famous and who gets plenty of attention every day, while unsung heroes get ignored.

There is only one choice who should be identified this year and that’s The Soldier in Afghanistan fighting a decade-old war while America goes shopping for stocking stuffers and Time magazine looks for publicity.

, , , , , , , , ,

12 Responses to Time’s Marketing Stunt and Who The Person of the Year Should Have Been

  1. Cujo359 December 19, 2012 at 3:19 pm #

    Hey, one year the person of the year was “the computer”. Why does anyone take this award seriously? There doesn’t seem to be any money in it…

  2. DaGoat December 19, 2012 at 4:33 pm #

    I see Time’s point that Obama is representative of the ascent of minorities and in that sense is a symbol of something larger, but this sure feels like the usual Obamadoration.

    • TPAZ December 19, 2012 at 10:12 pm #

      “I see Time’s point that Obama is representative of the ascent of minorities and in that sense is a symbol of something larger”

      Yeah, the 1% ‘ers; that ascending minority group in America who watches the working class and middle class disappear economically and hate seniors enough to charge them more for their healthcare while taking a chainsaw to their income. It’s a symbol of Americans and America going down the of serfdom for the benefit of the greedy.

  3. Taylor Marsh December 19, 2012 at 5:29 pm #

    I’m deleting any comment that calls President Obama a “terrorist” or any derivation of that description.

    • jinbaltimore December 19, 2012 at 5:37 pm #

      Do you have an approved term for someone who kills children merely for being geographically unlucky?

    • jinbaltimore December 19, 2012 at 5:40 pm #

      or are you deleting facts too?

    • Cujo359 December 19, 2012 at 6:25 pm #

      Yes, I’m also curious what terms are acceptable for describing a national leader who targets rescuers and hits areas that clearly will cause a high number of civilian casualties, along with people who might or might not have something to do with terrorism, particularly when that national leader doesn’t feel the need to explain how he knows they’re anything other than people with suspicious attitudes or habits.

      • jjamele December 19, 2012 at 7:42 pm #

        I’m with you guys. Seems to me that a guy who orders the bombing of villages and the deaths of innocents is a terrorist when it’s NOT the President of the United States. So what the hell?

        Taylor, sorry if the language offends you- but this guy doesn’t just have blood on his hands. He’s swimming in it. Maybe that makes you uncomfortable, but facts are facts. If he were President of Iraq and had done the same thing, we’d be calling for him to be hauled before The Hague. Heck, who am I kidding- we’d probably be targeting him with a drone.

    • jinbaltimore December 20, 2012 at 5:32 pm #

      It’s interesting. On the one hand you criticize “the Left” for sleeping and giving Obama a pass, but on the other you delete comments that actually call him out for what his extracurricular killings amount to.

      To borrow a metaphor from your recent spot-on post concerning Pelosi, it’s a bit trained poodle-esque.

      • Cujo359 December 20, 2012 at 8:03 pm #

        To be fair to Taylor, “terrorist” is an over-used term now. It’s used to describe protesters, bankers, and a whole lot of other people who might or might not deserve to be called something awful, but not “terrorist”. The President falls into that category, too, because strictly speaking, he’s not using the tactics of terrorism. He’s using the military. “War criminal” would be a more appropriate term, I think. Still, I can’t blame folks for noting the similarities and calling what I just wrote hair-splitting.

        The main reason I asked the question was because she wrote “or any derivation of that description.” As I’ve noted, that can cover a lot of ground, including “Occupier”.

  4. Beth in suburban Chicago December 20, 2012 at 9:30 am #

    It’s been an irrelevant designation for years, particularly since 2011 when the magazine wimped out and failed to name bin Laden.

    LOVE the idea of making it the Afghanistan solider, though I might have included Iraq as well.

  5. CopperWebs December 24, 2012 at 5:08 pm #

    I never bother to even see a Time magazine for this kind of stupid crap. Obama as person of the year? Gimme a freakin’ break. I wish I could move so bad….

.... a writer is someone who takes the universal whore of language
and turns her into a virgin again.  ~ erica jong