Putting it in perspective

[razorjak]

Some people are sickened that TIME magazine saw fit to give "Person of the Year" to George W. Bush. Well just think on this a bit.

Adolph Hitler was the man of the year for 1938
Joseph Stalin won twice 1939 and 1942.

Makes you think a bit, eh?

Comments

[absinthea.livejournal.com]

If it would have been Asscroft I would have offically barfed all over any copies I saw.

Frankly, I don't give a whole lot of cred to what most magazines say.

(shivers!)

[perrrfect-angel.livejournal.com]

You're making me twitch... scary man. Very scary man! (runs off and hides!)

[wishx.livejournal.com]

In 1982. The "Man" of the year was the computer... What does that say?

http://www.time.com/time/personoftheyear/archive/covers/1982.html

[midnightd.livejournal.com]

Thus prooveing one does not need to be a man or good to be man of the year this must be how the evil muppet george w got in.

[masokisst.livejournal.com]

OMG - wheres Mr. Nanners when you need him ?

[geekalpha.livejournal.com]

Wasn't the Aliatolah Khomeni man of the year once, too?

They put men who are influential on the cover, not men who are good. I'm honestly half suprised that they didn't make Osama Bin Laden a "man of the year." I think they just wussed out and took the better part of valor (developing a sudden allergy to torches and pitchforks) considering the american consensus on that bastard.

[the-siobhan.livejournal.com]

i think Bin Laden was considered.

They chose newsmakers. It isn't always positive news.

[blackavar.livejournal.com]

bin Ladin was actually selected, as he was the most newsmaking/impactful person of 2001, and it was accurate. However, the selection was leaked, and the outcry made them switch to Giuliani, who was definitely not the person with the most impact on 2001. Man of the Year's just the person (or thing, such as the computer or the Internet, which has been considered) that has the biggest impact.