Egad! Time Man of the Year: Osama bin Laden?

b0mbrman

Lifer
Jun 1, 2001
29,470
1
81
...or *Person* of the year I guess. In any case, that's what they're talking about doing. I'm without a link but it's on CNN, MSNBC right now.

From what they're saying, it makes sense since he's obviously the biggest newsmaker but Time "Man of the Year" sounds like too much of a compliment to give a c*cksucker like him
 

LAUST

Diamond Member
Sep 13, 2000
8,957
1
81
D!ckhead of the year yes, Man of the year... that guy is not a man. there are many htings he is, Man no, he doesn't even fight like one.
 

b0mbrman

Lifer
Jun 1, 2001
29,470
1
81
Alright, some more arguments for and against it:

For-
Hitler, Stalin, the Ayatollah Khomeini have all been Time "Man of the Year"

Against-
It would increase his prestige, make him a bigger hero in the Middle East...You know Al-Ahram, Jordan Times, etc. will be printing that for months to come
 

GasX

Lifer
Feb 8, 2001
29,033
6
81
Methinks the Editor is desperately trying to increase circulation...

 

KaBudokan

Senior member
Oct 10, 1999
962
1
71
Hitler was named Man of the Year in 1939, and Stalin was in 1942.

bin Laden, while being a useless piece of crap, had the biggest impact on the world this year. It sucks, but that is the criteria they use.

Be prepared to witness a HUGE backlash, boycott, etc., if they do it.
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
unusual, but he did make the biggest impact on our lifes this year.

Hitler got Man of the Year to.

I think they should change the name of this man of the year thing, it is very seldom fitting for those who got it. Like wtf, Bush got man of the year last year? I would have understood it if he got it this year, but last year??
 

Logix

Diamond Member
Jul 26, 2001
3,627
0
0
Well, he has certainly altered the landscape of our planet. If he receives the "honor", he'll join the ranks of

1938 - Adolf Hitler
1939 - Joseph Stalin
1942 - Joseph Stalin

Just don't tell me Dean Kamen and his "Segway" will be Man of the Year, like "The Computer" was in 1982.
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0


<< Although I don't think he deserves any type of award, he certainly was the biggest newsmaker of the award, so it should be given to him. >>



Thats it.. They should rename it to Newsmaker of the Year, makes more sense.
 

loup garou

Lifer
Feb 17, 2000
35,132
1
81


<<

<< Although I don't think he deserves any type of award, he certainly was the biggest newsmaker of the award, so it should be given to him. >>



Thats it.. They should rename it to Newsmaker of the Year, makes more sense.
>>



Good idea.
 

trulfe

Senior member
May 17, 2000
778
0
0
shouldnt it go to mohammed atta then , wasnt he the leader of the attacks. He was just apart of Al Queda(sp?).
 

b0mbrman

Lifer
Jun 1, 2001
29,470
1
81
*sigh* More people who don't understand how Time's MOTY works.

Great, I'm being condescended to :(...Yes, I understand how it works; look at my original post. And of course, we all know that Time's a private company and they can do whatever they want with it...

I just don't like the signal it sends.
 

Hakunin

Senior member
May 12, 2001
508
0
0
Time has been naming men of the year since 1927, it seems quite stupid to change the name now.

"Man of the Year" has always been defined as the biggest newsmaker, and it has been applied to large groups of people and inanimate objects before.
 

Hakunin

Senior member
May 12, 2001
508
0
0
It shouldn't go to Mohammed Atta, no one gave a fsck about him before, and no one does now. bin Laden was behind the attacks, regardless of who was actually on the planes.
 

b0mbrman

Lifer
Jun 1, 2001
29,470
1
81
Yep. You can bet there will be a huge asterisk next to "Man of the Year" because of the reaction they can expect...Agreed that "Newsmaker" would be nice but it's a tradition older than anyone at the magazine and I wouldn't change it if I were at the magazine...
 

RazeOrc

Senior member
Nov 16, 2001
269
0
0
Just another example of Sensational Liberalism, damned media liberals put him on the cover while the conservatives try to whipe his a$$ off the face of the earth, I hope the conservatives put his dead and beaten body on the cover of FORBES.


And no i'm not liberal or a conservative, i'm what you might call a liberal conservative...
 

Hakunin

Senior member
May 12, 2001
508
0
0
RazeOrc, who do you think was a bigger newsmaker this year than Osama bin Laden? The Man of the Year award doesn't mean anything other than that...
 

Logix

Diamond Member
Jul 26, 2001
3,627
0
0
<< Like wtf, Bush got man of the year last year? I would have understood it if he got it this year, but last year?? >>

Czar, there seems to be a tradition that every elected President becomes Man of the Year at least once. Every President since FDR has been Man of the Year at least once, except Gerald Ford, who wasn't elected. If Gore won last year, they would have selected Gore. Basically, I think, it was a slow year, and they wanted to get that tradition of selecting a President out of the way as soon as possible.

Also, I was thinking about Time's previous nods to Hitler and Stalin. While those two men were undeniably evil, they weren't waging war against the United States when Time chose them. After Pearl Harbor, Time didn't make Hirohito or Tojo or Japan the "Man of the Year". Osama is waging war with us, so that would make his selection a little more dubious.
 

jjones

Lifer
Oct 9, 2001
15,424
2
0
for osama bin hidin' to even be considered is atrocious. i'd prefer they have the tourist guy as MOTY.



<< RazeOrc, who do you think was a bigger newsmaker this year than Osama bin Laden? The Man of the Year award doesn't mean anything other than that... >>


yeah but the general public doesn't consider it that way. most people consider it to be an honor and time's going to have a bit of explaining to do. in a way, i hope they do name bin hidin' and it blows up in their face.
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0


<< Czar, there seems to be a tradition that every elected President becomes Man of the Year at least once. Every President since FDR has been Man of the Year at least once, except Gerald Ford, who wasn't elected. If Gore won last year, they would have selected Gore. Basically, I think, it was a slow year, and they wanted to get that tradition of selecting a President out of the way as soon as possible. >>


Neither of them won last year, Bush won this year... unless Time Mag knew something that the rest of us didnt. Thats why I find it so strange that they selected Bush for last years man of the year.




lirion,
Bush did not unite a nation, Bin Laden did that. The best way to unite a nation is a common enemy. Even if Bozo the Clown had been the president then people would unite behind him.

 

RazeOrc

Senior member
Nov 16, 2001
269
0
0
I understand Hakunin but like Logix said

<<Also, I was thinking about Time's previous nods to Hitler and Stalin. While those two men were undeniably evil, they weren't waging war against the United States when Time chose them. After Pearl Harbor, Time didn't make Hirohito or Tojo or Japan the "Man of the Year". Osama is waging war with us, so that would make his selection a little more dubious.>>

I just don't think it inspires anyone, just makes them more angry, we need hope, peace, unity, and righteous justice to beat this, not anger and hatred, just look at Israel and Palestine...

I think this damages what little shred of respect I still held for the concept of media, it's looking more like a self-contained attempt at INFLUENCING public opinion as oppsed to REPORTING public opinion...

If I want HATRED and REVENGE all I have to do is watch the news...
If I want JUSTICE and PEACE all I have to do is remember those flames and sing our National Anthem...

There is a difference...