Posted on 12/16/2010 10:22:24 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Wednesday’s announcement that Facebook co-founder, CEO and pop culture phenomenon, Mark Zuckerberg, was named Time magazine’s illustrious Person of the Year has led to many in the media crying that the choice blasphemes the church that is the hallowed Person of the Year legacy. I was one of the people on Time’s panel to nominate and argue over who was most deserving of the title. My two choices were the Tea Party and Mark Zuckerberg. The Time panel consisted of myself, Joe Trippi, Google’s Marissa Miller (who petitioned hard for Steve Jobs to be considered for Person of the Year), Wyclef Jean, and the executive director of the American Society for Muslim Advancement Daisy Khan. Everyone chose both interesting and poignant candidates. Other notable ideas that were discussed were Nancy Pelosi, Glenn Beck and the country of Haiti.
Time’s choice is like the man himself, innovative and controversial. The Person of the Year is an illusive title that has historically showcased, for better or worse, the individual who has had the most distinctive impact on the previous year. In 2010 Facebook hit its five hundred millionth member. A feat no social network has ever achieved. David Fincher and Aaron Sorkin’s The Social Network was also released to both commercial and critical acclaim. Mark Zuckerberg has become the first true millenial rockstar, and he is ushering in a completely new era.
At the end of the day, Mark Zuckerberg really is the most forward thinking and relevant candidate, even beating Julian Assange and the Tea Party. He transcends all of these people and, dare I say, even countries because all of these subjects are more than likely to be read about, discussed, and debated via users on—where else?—Facebook. I believe that Mark Zuckerberg is the Henry Ford of our times and Facebook is the Model-T.
Although the choice may be controversial given Zuckerberg’s age and his somewhat bumpy public relations, there is no denying the omnipresence of Facebook and the impact it has had on shaping our lives, even while raising questions about privacy and if real privacy can in fact even exist anymore.
******
Meghan McCain is a columnist for The Daily Beast. Originally from Phoenix, she graduated from Columbia University in 2007. She is a New York Times bestselling children's author, previously wrote for Newsweek magazine, and created the Web site mccainblogette.com. Her new book, Dirty Sexy Politics, was published in August.
Some person of the year. Most of us never even heard of Mark Zuckerberg, until was named Time Magazine’s Person of the Year.
For those interested ... An Earlier Related Discussion is here.
EarlierFacebook/Zukerbergdebate
From NYT
"Some of the well-known titles with dramatic single-copy declines included W, down 41.7 percent to about 25,000 for an average issue; Newsweek, down 41.3 percent to about 62,000 (Newsweek had decreased the number of copies on sale, noted a spokesman); SmartMoney, down 37 percent to about 26,000; Time, down 34.9 percent to about 90,000; Good Housekeeping, down 30.7 percent to 395,000; and Redbook, down 30.1 percent to 126,000."
If they went this route, I would select Steve Jobs. as an individual, jobs has had a much more dramatic impact on technology advancements...even creating a big portion of the opportunity for a website like Facebook. With the release of the Ipad and Iphone 4 this year, he made another round of radical advancements in computer technology.
Facebook has no doubt greatly impacted our society, but their massive growth was largely being in the right place at the right time. There was success in myspace and some others, but Facebook when mainstream and everyone from kids to grandparents are now communicating through this medium. No doubt Facebook changed things, and Zuckerberg is the head of it, but I don’t see him as an individual as reaching this level.
Of course,this choice is much better than this Asange turd. I don’t have major issues with this selection, but it could have been better. We knew Time would never recognize a grassroots conservative movement, so we’ll leave out the tea party argument.
Not counting that cop-out choice in whatever year that was a picture of a computer monitor with "YOU" printed on it.
This is actually the edited version- what she wrote by herself had all kinds of bizarre errors in it...
“Person of the Year” is just barely helping them move that rag.
I picked up a copy of TIME a few days ago (while waiting in an office for a meeting to start.)
The magazine has become almost comically biased to the left. Without exception, every issue “covered,” even if it was quite a stretch, had to be made relevant to a dying earth, or homosexual marriage, etc.
TIME is SO biased - again, enough to make you laugh out loud! - that I can see how readers from both the left and the right no longer take it seriously. It’s more of a strange embarrassment than a news source or picturebook, and it has become an utterly under-read and irrelevant (but propped up) part of the printed media.
Time went PC years ago by calling this “Person of the Year” rather than “Man of the Year”, as it was originally known.
And the criteria were that the winner had the biggest impact of news events during the year, for good or for bad. Ayatollah Khomeini (sp?) won in 1979 due to the Iran revolution and hostage crisis. Hitler won in 1938 due to the events leading to World War II and his role in it.
So have we gone so pop culture in the news business that a software application inventor is the bigges newsmaker of the year? Maybe he is important to those who watch Jon Stewart instead of real news shows, but, I bet most people don’t know him by name, and will have to be told that he’s the inventor of Facebook to understand who this guy is.
I dunno; last week’s Time (the one with the Sarah Palin cover) was pretty fair and centrist. They also took a moderate stance on the tax cut debacle, unlike the crazies who were yelling “Down with Obama the bourgeois revisionist traitor!” Maybe the regular staff of Time is on Christmas vacation.
“that I can see how readers from both the left and the right no longer take it seriously”
Yep, too liberal to satisfy the right, not extreme enough for the far left headcases.
A good choice for the Z generation. Zero + zombies + Zzzzs = zot
Seriously? Time sure has found a way to sink deeper into the gutter.
The left has accomplished the result below using mostly Twitter and Facebook. The Right ignores Social Media at it's peril!
And, of course, big thanks to all this participating in the StopBeck Effort. Your tweets and emails do matter.
Dropped Sponsors
Total number of companies that refuse to have ads run on Glenn Beck: 141! (Although, based on a New York Times report, this number is actually at 302).
Your efforts are working: After advertisers flee, Glenn Beck’s show in the U.K. ran without ads for 4 months, then returned briefly, and are back off again. That means, Glenn Beck’s show has run in the U.K. for nearly 10 months without any commercials.
Also, it has been reported that the Glenn Beck show is losing more than 50% of its weekly ad revenue as a result of this boycott.
Notably: The New York Times recently reported that 296 companies refuse to have their advertisements run on Glenn Beck’s program. The report also explained that Fox News was having difficulty selling ads on O’Reilly and Fox & Friends on the days that Glenn Beck is scheduled to appear. Several months ago, The Washington Post reported that the number of companies that refuse to run ads on Glenn Beck’s show exceeds 200.
Keep it up!
To date (12/01/10), here is a list of 141 (a fraction of the total number of) advertisers that have either pulled ads from or taken proactive measures to ensure that their ads do not appear on the Glenn Beck Program in the United States, the U.K., or both:
Never heard of him. I thought Time Magazine folded in the early ‘80s. Oh, well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.