And yet we’re still surprised when Time Magazine gets it wrong

A lot of people have had a good laugh over the fact that Time Magazine, romanticizing the OWS crowd and the Muslim Brotherhood, named “The Protester” as its person of the year.  A friend of mine, however, has noted something that a lot of people passed over, which is one of Times‘ runner-ups, Admiral McRaven, the man who led the Special Ops team that took bin Laden down (thanks to Obama’s superior leadership, of course).  Says my friend:

Evidence that the editors at TIME magazine have all of their heads implanted firmly in their collective ASSES: their PERSON OF THE YEAR is “The Protester”…and yet somehow Admiral McRaven came in as a “runner up”. Are they out of their damned minds? Do they have any idea what this man has accomplished?? How much he has done for this country?

“The Protestor”? Really? Get off the meta kick you blubbering MORONS (anyone remember when “you” were TIME’s person of the year- with the reflective cover? Or “the American Soldier”). This has really descended into stupidity (they might still be stinging from naming “Hitler” man of the year back in ’38).

Admiral McRaven represents everything that we can be proud of in our military heroes (especially our Navy- had to get that plug in there :-))

“The Protestor” is a meaningless, amorphous, nonsensical piece of meta garbage developed by a room full of people that are more interested in being clever than in actually saying anything of substance.

Well, yes, the protester is indeed “a meaningless, amorphous, nonsensical piece of meta garbage.”  And the choice to give these pooping protesters the crown, while making Admiral McRaven follow behind perfectly illustrates the peculiar inversion of values that governs in the liberal media.

Times’ choice here illustrates what I call a “Eurotrash mindset.”  Eurotrash people are dazzled by fame, and are too dumb to have values.  My grandmother, although she came from a rather stodgy upper class European background, was Eurotrash.  Why?  Because when she sat out WWII in Istanbul, she hung with Nuri Pasha, a member of Turkey’s rich and famous class.  If the name doesn’t mean anything to you, don’t be surprised.  You might not even know Nuri’s more famous brother, Enver.  The historical reality, though, is that Nuri was Enver’s foot soldier, and between the two them, they slaughtered about 1.5 million Armenians.  Enver got the fame and the infamy.  Nuri became a wealthy industrialist.  And my grandmother called him friend.

My grandmother was not an evil woman who rejoiced in Armenian genocide.  What was perhaps worse was that she just didn’t care.  Nuri was rich, well-connected and charming, and that was good enough for her. And for Time Magazine, substance and decency is always going to take second place to razzle dazzle and cheap anti-Western sentiment.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. jj says

    I hold no brief for Time magazine, but, as they have, (to do them justice), explained over and over and over and over again – every single year since the damn magazine came into being – the “”Person of the Year” implies no admiration.  It implies no approval, it does not imply that the selectee is worthy of emulation – it says nothing whatever about the selectee, either positive or negative, except one thing.  It means this is the person who made the most news during the preceding year.  When they selected Hitler they were not saying he was swell, or they approved, or thought him worthy of emulation, or admiration, or even considered him a decent specimen of humanity  All they were saying was: this guy made more noise, was the driver of more news stories, and preoccupied more news cycles than anyone else on the planet during the preceding twelve months.
     
    That’s how – and why – you end up with guys like Hitler, Khomeini, Stalin, Mao, etc. as “Person of the Year.”  It isn’t an award for good behavior.  Never has been.

  2. SADIE says

    “The Protestor” is a meaningless, amorphous, nonsensical piece of meta garbage…
     
    Aha! The cover mirrors the content.
     
     
    jj
    Comment:
     
    ….during the preceding twelve months.
     
    Which would explain why they put the Tea Party on the cover?
     

  3. jj says

    Umm… Did the Tea Party make more news than the world-wide protests of the last twelve months?  Can’t say – haven’t counted.  Certainly the protests around the planet appeared in more outlets than the Tea Party did.  I doubt if too many middle eastern news outlets – print or otherwise – bothered with the Tea Party, but they did prominently – and endlessly – feature the protesters.  Doubt if many Africans got much news of the Tea Party.  Or South Americans.  Or cared if they did.
     
    I would have said the last year featured protest as a planetary motif.  (No thoughts offered as to whether many of them were sensible or not – but a whole lot of the planet caught fire this past twelvemonth.)  The Tea Party, on the other hand, is a USA phenomenon, which perhaps generates a little interest in Canada.  So of the 7 billion people here, 6 and half billion of them never heard of it. 
     
    Nobody, on the other hand, failed to notice that there seemed to be a lot of discontent this past year.  That’s Time’s point: it was the biggest news generator of the year.  I bet it was, too.  I bet for every front page that said something about the Tea Party, there were a thousand that noted some protest somewhere. 

  4. SADIE says

     
    The Tea Party changed and impacted the 2010 elections, I would not have expected them this year, but last. The TP was the die-cutter for all the other movements that followed. I don’t expect that any “news” organization would give them their due – it was a bloodless political coup.
     
    jj, you are spot on “It isn’t an award for good behavior” – what is, anymore. I just detest the marketing of villains and the vilification of decency.

  5. ferninphilly says

    VERY good point about the person of the year not being, as it were, a measure of ‘meritocracy’.
    I am happy to admit that I did not get this point across very clearly in my post above- but what was frustrating me was not that they failed to choose a much more admirable figure than ‘protester’.
    Instead my ‘mini-rant’ there was driven more by frustration at the contest here: it is a person (Admiral McRaven) versus a ‘concept’ (the ‘protester’) which is, from the beginning, a completely unfair comparison.
    Admiral McRaven is a real person with real accomplishments and real failures. ‘Protester’ is an amorphous concept that can embody anything that the editors want to put into it.

    Admiral McRaven has made decisions and actual actions that have led to something of real, lasting value (in this case- eliminating an enemy of the country). Individual ‘protesters’ may have done things of real value- but for every ‘protester’ that has accomplished anything there are just as many that have destroyed things. For every ‘protester’ that did something ‘newsworthy’ there were ten that accomplished nothing (except sitting in tents). There is nothing wrong with individual ‘protesters’- but to name a concept as ‘person of the year’ and then have the temerity to announce a real person as ‘runner up’- ESPECIALLY a person as admirable as Admiral McRaven, is the height of absurdity. It’s comparing apples to oranges. 

    If TIME wanted to compare concepts to concepts then that’s fine. Maybe ‘War’ could win person of the year. Or why not ‘Farmer’ or ‘Teacher’ or ‘Politician’? You could gather all of these concepts together in a room (‘revolution’ maybe?) and then hash out which one was the most worthy of being named ‘Concept of the year’.

    The point is that there is no way that Admiral McRaven ever had a shot at winning this honor against a concept that houses so many ideologies (I mean… ‘Protester’ is a cop-out…it doesn’t even choose a side! It implies that ALL PROTESTS are somehow newsworthy this year. Huh?!?). Admiral McRaven DOES choose a side. He IS a man of accomplishment. He IS newsworthy.  That was the point of my rant.   

  6. says

    Leftist propaganda is Leftist propaganda. They’re either being bribed, blackmailed, or obligated to do certain things for the Left. And you all won’t ever know about it until 50 years later, what exactly happened or didn’t happen.

     

  7. eli says

    JJ,  You probably are correct but the problem is the American public does not view Time’s Person of the Year that way. Time doesn’t make that position particularly clear. If the majority perception that the Person of the Year is someone to be admired. . . .  Time has an obligation out front to clearly clarify that.

    Personally, I think they do admire the protesters, certain protesters. Not the Tea Party, as has been pointed out. There are none as blind as those who will not see. I refer to Time, not you, JJ.

  8. jj says

    Eli – Time has explained that at least 11,000 times in my adult life.  They can’t help what the American public does or does not “get.”  Nor can the rest of us help that the American public put what’s in the white house there – of their own free will.  (I don’t have a lot of respect for the thought processes of the American public – sorry.)

  9. Danny Lemieux says

    Why does anyone care?

    Have you seen how thin Time and Newsweek folios look these days (I still see copies now and then in my dentist’s office)? That bespeaks the lack of readers and advertisers. They are has-been Lefty publications, exuding all the influence of a swineherd’s fart in a pigsty.

    No.bo.dy.cares! 

Leave a Reply