Time magazine’s Person of the Year turns out to be the person each of us knows best. As Time sees it, choosing “you” as Person of the Year for 2006, complete with a “mirror” on the cover, is “about the cosmic compendium of knowledge Wikipedia and the million-channel people’s network YouTube and the online metropolis MySpace. It’s about the many wresting power from the few and helping one another for nothing and how that will not only change the world, but also change the way the world changes.” Those wishing for a more traditional Person of the Year can find some contenders inside, including Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Jack Abramoff, Muqtada al-Sadr, Sacha Baron Cohen, “Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld” (as a group), Raul Castro, Hugo Chavez, Stephen Colbert, “the Grain Farmer,” Katie Couric, Bill Ford, Michael J. Fox, Congress’ new Democratic leadership, Al Gore, the Iraq Study Group, Kim Jong Il, Angela Merkel, John Murtha, Pluto, Pope Benedict XVI and Condoleezza Rice.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/24
- dtrabert on Too many exemptions
- gster on Goldman Sachs ‘apology’ hollow
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/24
53 Comments
Was this a cop-out, or what?
I commend Time Magazine for responsible journalism.
And someone on here suggested Howard Dean…
bawhahahaha.
Lame journalism.
Can I add this to my resume?
Clearly, the Time’s staff have not met Ian Santiago … or they’ve got some really bad editors.
Hey, we’re all a part of something big, us on the WE blog. There are people around the nation having the exact same discussions. I know I’ve become far more knowledgeable since I started blogging. And it is because of the people who I disagree with.
So I think it’s cool, WE did do this. WE are the people who have changed the world.
I thought it was rather clever. I don’t for a minute believe that *I* am included in the collective “you”, but it is definitely the truth – people have changed the face of the world through the Internet in this last year. Too bad I posted on this yesterday or I could really go into a rant :)
~Dubyahttp://wichitavoice.com/blog/
Katie Couric as person of the year? (vomit, gag) If she had any talent for news casting and a voice better sounding than a monotoned robot, I might consider it.
Otherwise, how about no…
Yeah we know JM, those damn women libbers, dont the women know their place is barefoot and in the kitchen! How dare one take over a newsanchor spot.
How about we give the women in the kitchen Prada and stilletos? They better know how to cook though.
:)
My Dad would be so proud!
Your dad, JR?
pmom…
Katie is ok, she did a pretty good job interviewing Gracia Burnham, but my wife immediately changes the channel when she comes on the news. I don’t think it has anything to do with being anti-woman…..
I’m sure he’s looking down, Junior – smiling and proud.
kansassam,Same at my house. And it’s not because she’s a woman – she just does a terrible job.
Hmmm, I can’t afford Prada purses and stilletos but I could settle for a free-backrub and leave the toilet seat down and take out the trash. Would that be considerate enough for the woman to actually make me a hot meal?
“Yeah we know JM, those damn women libbers, dont the women know their place is barefoot and in the kitchen! How dare one take over a newsanchor spot.” Posted by: political_mom | December 19, 2006 at 10:43 AM
W R O N G!
There are currently at least twenty female newcasters I would have rated above Couric without putting much thought into it.
Couric has zero talent in what it takes to be a newscaster. She is boring to listen to with that monotone voice and has an appearance of a made-up doll head fresh out of the beauty parlor.
Here’s a short list:
Christiane AmanpourBrenda ButtnerChris JansingBarbara WaltersConnie Chung
I don’t consider personal political views as a part of the criterea for hiring. I do include on screen presence, delivery and consistent interpretation of daily/periodical events.
Here’s a pipe tamper, so stuff that in your pipe and smoke it. :)
Barbara Walters are you kidding me?
And for the rest of you, do your wives switch the station to watch another news station, or something else entirely?
Katie doesn’t suck, her ratings are high, she’s a first, and you can’t stand that.
PeeMom,Umm…Katie’s ratings are high? “High” relative to what – PBS?
CBS mired in its usual third place in the weekly Nielsen derby.And, to add fuel to the fire…In the November ratings sweeps, the $15 million-a-year Couric averaged almost 170,000 fewer viewers per night than did her less expensive “interim” predecessor, Bob Schieffer.
Whatcha smokin’ Pee?
Typical delusional leftist thinking Pmom.
That is, if you say something it must be true.
Time’s cover is little more than a way to sell magazines to the deludedly self-important “blogosphere.”
Yes, I know I post in it. But I have no illusions about my own importance, or anyone else’s. It’s mostly self-congratulation.
And Time’s going to use it to sell mags by adding to that influated sense of self-importance.
Marketing gimmick of the year.
GMC do you deny that the blogosphere had a lot to do with the way things are turning out?
And nice dodge of the question Testicles. But hey, if you can’t tell the truth- spin mini-Rush, spin.
No, P-mom, I don’t believe the “blogosphere” is nearly as important as it likes to think it is. Those who are active on the net were already active, and most don’t actually exchange ideas or seek real information on the net. Instead, they go to sites (like this one often is) which simply reinforces what they believe without challenging it.
Net result? A lot of self-congratulation, and “talking” with people who large believe just as you do. Many then begin to believe that all “right-thinking” (We’ve seen that phrase here, haven’t we?) persons must agree with us. We cannot imagine that others could possible disagree; they must be delusional (or fascist, or communist, or worse).
A reflection of a society dedicated to image over substance.
Pee,MrsGolf would change the channel to Fox – naturally.
Now, Katie is 3rd in a field of 3 with lower ratings than her “interim” predecessor, Bob Schieffer.
How does that equal “her ratings are high”?
Darn, that brilliant GMC70 is deflating the self-importance of bloggers here. That guy is just no fun…
Time should have just put a picture of a coconut on the cover of their magazine.
V.L.R.B!!
The CBS News ratings are high and Star Trek brought us the cell phone. Pmom- you are something, but not special.
It’s OK Steven.I’m still self-important.It’s a good day to be me.
Personally, I find the cover very interesting! Does it mean that no-one meets the criteria for Time’s Person of the Year so they elected all of us. Or does it mean that we have ALL become so very special (in our own eyes?) that it was impossible to pick just one?
GMC
You said yourself that I “bring out the best in you”.
Perhaps you take a bit from here and into your rather important office? I like to think so.
Fleets enema, you should read about the person who invented the cell phone, and what inspired him. Then you should stop talking out your ass.
CBS news <— wallowing in 3rd place in a field of 3. Although, PeeMom will tell you she has “high ratings”.
heh
Prove it shit for brains. I asked you to show me these ratings and you refused. Last time I saw, she was on top.
Pee, like almost all liberals, anytime someone proves you wrong (like now) you resort to name calling. Kinda shows your intellect, huh?
“The contest for ratings supremacy among the three network nightly newscasts increasingly looked like a two-man race last week as viewers continued to desert the CBS Evening News With Katie Couric. Most of the disaffected viewers appeared to be heading towards ABC’s World News With Charles Gibson, which won the week among adults 25-54, the key demographic group for news shows. NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams continued to draw the most viewers, however — 9,120,000 versus ABC’s 9,000,000. By contrast, the Couric newscast appeared almost out of the running, with just 7,450,000 viewers — 10 percent fewer viewers than those attracted by Bob Schieffer during the comparable week a year ago and the smallest audience for the Couric newscast since it was launched in September.”
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0800281/news
Dang now, that MOVIE REVIEW site really hates Katie Couric ya think by the way they have a story EVERY DAY saying how bad she sucks?
Very credible source there nuts. But hey, you put something out there, which is more than you usually do.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/10/31/221634.shtml
Despite her newsmaking interview with Michael J. Fox last week, Katie Couric’s goal of taking the “CBS Evening News” to the top is getting further out of reach.
Her average audience of 7.3 million viewers left the “CBS Evening News” 1.1 million behind ABC’s second-place “World News.” It was the biggest gap between the two broadcasts since the week of Feb. 6, according to Nielsen Media Research. NBC’s “Nightly News” led the way with 8.9 million viewers last week.
The fifth week was the toughest for Katie Couric, whose viewership on the “CBS Evening News” has dropped each week since her debut the day after Labor Day.
Her broadcast averaged 7.04 million viewers last week, third to NBC’s “Nightly News” (8.56 million) and ABC’s “World News” (7.97 million), according to Nielsen Media Research.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/09/AR2006100900839.html
Nielson’s ratings for the November Sweeps period have been released, and TVNewser reports that nothing much has changed on the nightly news front: NBC with Brian Williams is still in first, ABC with Charlie Gibson is still in second, and CBS with Katie Couric is still in third with the following numbers:
Total viewersNBC: 9,570,000ABC: 8,920,000CBS: 7,780,000
http://swik.net/cbs
Ok so she’s in third place right now…big deal. I was wrong now- twice, and you’ve been wrong a million and one times.
by the way, that’s still 5 million more viewers than Bill O’Reilly.
So if SHE sucks, I wonder what that makes your icon BILL-O?
Yes, you’re wrong – again.
Coupled with your ongoing name-calling, I’d say that pretty much eliminates your credibility.
O’Reilly doesn’t do the news, Pee. It’s comparing apples and oranges. And I have no idea what his ratings are.
Let’s see…At 7.00 central time, the cable news shows have the following ratings:
O’Reilly (Fox) – 2.7 million viewersPaula Zahn (CNN) – 639,000Olbermann (MSNBC) – 638,000
That’s shear dominance.
The recognized blog troll is talking aobut credibility?
Come now goofnuts. Don’t make me go get one of your meltdown transformations.
Oh Junior,You and your troll fantasy.
In the interest of the credibility of this blog, I will be right back with proof that goofnuts is a troller.
Junior,I’m on the edge of my seat.
It would seem the troll proof of goofnuts on a previous open thread has been removed.
The editors are doing that lately.
No matter. Goof can’t resist. He’ll troll again.
Details please, J.R., details.
Viva La Raza Blanco!!
WHAT??? Junior’s ‘proof’?
Turns out Juniors proof was no proof at all.
*shock*
Please, tell me, Golfnut, what’s your agenda?
V.L.R.B!!
My agenda: the truth and common sense.