So says Time Magazine in choosing YOU as the Person of the Year. Editor Richard Stengel makes a compelling case for choosing you – all of you, and me, too 
– as the PoTY:
…individuals are changing the nature of the information age, … the creators and consumers of user-generated content are transforming art and politics and commerce, … they are the engaged citizens of a new digital democracy
[...]
There are lots of people in my line of work who believe that this phenomenon is dangerous because it undermines the traditional authority of media institutions like TIME. Some have called it an “amateur hour.” And it often is. But America was founded by amateurs. The framers were professional lawyers and military men and bankers, but they were amateur politicians, and that’s the way they thought it should be. Thomas Paine was in effect the first blogger, and Ben Franklin was essentially loading his persona into the MySpace of the 18th century, Poor Richard’s Almanack. The new media age of Web 2.0 is threatening only if you believe that an excess of democracy is the road to anarchy. I don’t.
I think Time made a great choice! Guess I’ll need to buy a copy of the magazine and see my face on the cover
Between this and Salon.com deciding S.R. Sidarth should be man of the year, I think it’s safe to say that technology is the “thing” of the year.
Posted by Bryan Scrafford | Saturday, December 16, 2006, 10:31 pmOn the CNN special where this was announced they actually gave mention to the “Macaca” video. I was just glad they didn’t choose YouTube (or some variation there of) as the “PERSON” of the year, and instead chose the people who make those sites what they are.
Posted by Terry | Saturday, December 16, 2006, 10:53 pmWas it really that hard to find someone to name person of the year? This is weak; even choosing the left’s little instrument Sidarth would have shown some effort.
Posted by CR UVa | Saturday, December 16, 2006, 11:05 pmCR UVA, who would you have picked? No one really stood out this year, and websites like YouTube have had (and will continue) to have a profound impact on the country. Choosing YouTube would have been ridiculous (even though they have chosen inanimate objects before), so choosing the user was the best alternative.
Posted by Terry | Saturday, December 16, 2006, 11:14 pmHeh, Terry, do you really want to know who I’d pick? I’m sure you would disagree anyway.
Yes, it was hard to pick someone this year. Despite a big election cycle and continued conflicts in the Middle East, no one really stood out. Yet, even in down years in college football, a Heisman winner is selected. In elections where neither candidate seems viable, one wins. In any competition in general, someone comes out on top.
If anything, this might have been the year to be bold. Pick someone unconventional and make a case. Going with “You” sounds too cliche, unimaginative, and in the end, pretty boring. Oh yeah, and did I mention lazy? All I am asking for is a little effort by Time magazine. The POTY has at times been iconic; there is no chance of that this year.
Like I said before, I am no fan of Sidarth, but Salon showed an effort there. It might be interesting to see how the difference in their pick in contrast to Time’s plays out, even if Time’s choice is not.
Posted by CR UVa | Saturday, December 16, 2006, 11:32 pmI can think of any number of folks that Time could have picked but I still like their choice.
Posted by vjp | Saturday, December 16, 2006, 11:39 pm“Going with “You” sounds too cliche, unimaginative”
I bet you would have never thunk it. Nor would I. I think it’s pretty creative, and a lot better than going with “Youtube” or the internets.
Posted by Terry | Sunday, December 17, 2006, 12:18 am“Heh, Terry, do you really want to know who I’d pick? I’m sure you would disagree anyway. ”
Oh, and you still never answered the question.
” In any competition in general, someone comes out on top. ”
Time Magazine’s POTY is hardly a “competition.” It’s someone/thing who had a profound impact in the world over the past year.
Posted by Terry | Sunday, December 17, 2006, 12:20 amYeah, I think this choice was hacky and pandering to a readership that is dwindling.
This was done more as some sort of buzz creating story than in the spirit of the POTY.
Yet another MSM outlet that has gone to sh*t and is struggling with it’s own irrelevance.
They could have picked someone who ran the Dems election plan, or something to do with Iraq, or hell, even the Google Guys, or something but this is more like bad ad campaign.
Posted by thesqueakywheel | Sunday, December 17, 2006, 9:49 amIt’s funny that they picked “you” because I recall thinking 2 weeks ago when this topic started hitting the news: I bet they pick something like The American Citizen, because of the election and how we “spoke” thru various means.
This is really just to say that “You” is not so imaginative, because I thought of it 2 weeks ago, and a bastion of imagination I am not.
Posted by Olivia | Sunday, December 17, 2006, 1:58 pm” or something but this is more like bad ad campaign.”
Bet you this issue sells more than it has in previous years.
Posted by Terry | Sunday, December 17, 2006, 5:40 pmAccording to Andrew Sullivan’s blog, Time’s probable choice for Person of the Year was Mahmoud Ahmedinejad. Apparently they cooked up the “you” award because they just couldn’t bear to give it to him.
Posted by Randy Klear | Monday, December 18, 2006, 12:54 pm