So the Time person of the year is you. Otherwise know as us.
Well, I suppose I should give Time some credit for recognizing the power of the people. Only thing is, there’s no news here. This is nothing new. We have always been in charge. It’s just that the people who thought they had the power now have no choice to but hear us and recognize that we are, and always have been, the boss.
This is stated in the hammer-and-chisel language of a Time tome:
But look at 2006 through a different lens and you’ll see another story, one that isn’t about conflict or great men. It’s a story about community and collaboration on a scale never seen before. . . . 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. . . .The new Web is a very different thing. It’s a tool for bringing together the small contributions of millions of people and making them matter. Silicon Valley consultants call it Web 2.0, as if it were a new version of some old software. But it’s really a revolution. . . .
And for seizing the reins of the global media, for founding and framing the new digital democracy, for working for nothing and beating the pros at their own game, TIME’s Person of the Year for 2006 is you. . . .
I don’t disagree with a thing they say. I just want to turn down the volume a bit. And people think bloggers like me get overheated.
This year’s cover reveals that the notion — or they would like to think, institution — of a single person of the year in the single biggest news magazine is such a social anachronism. It is a vestige of the mass era. It is the conceit of mass media that they could pick one person who mattered for the world and that we would listen.
So it’s wise of Time to pick many people. That’s the way the world really works. There are many worlds within our world and many leaders in them. So if Time were doing its job properly, it would highlight a million people of the year. But, of course, it can’t. The form doesn’t allow it. And the form is what led to massthink. But mass is over. And I see this as Time’s admission of that. And so for that, I applaud them.
God knows what they’ll put on the cover near year. (Knowing them, it may well be God.)





Pingback: PapaScott » Blog Archive » All About Us
Pingback: Jackie Danicki » Time’s Person of the Year: Yawn
Pingback: Doug Petch » Pat Yourself On The Back
Pingback: Marketing.fm » The Time Person of the Year: You
Pingback: It’s all about you at Debanter
Pingback: Netzfischer.EU - Denn das Netz ist konfus » Wir sind’s - die TIME Person des Jahres 2006.
Pingback: The Yourdon Report » Blog Archive » Time magazine’s choice for “Person of the Year” is old news to bloggers, but perhaps not everyone else
Pingback: Web Jungle - A Weblog on Advertising, Digital Marketing and Web Culture » The Person of the Year is: Everyone!
Pingback: Citizen Media Watch » Citizen media voices: It’s US, not YOU
Pingback: La Shawn Barber’s Corner » TIME Person of the Year: Me!
Pingback: Blog Relations » Blog Archive » “You” Person of the Year
Pingback: Center for Citizen Media: Blog » Blog Archive » Us, not You
Pingback: Garrick Van Buren .com » Where Theory and Practice in Publishing Differ
Pingback: Framtider.net » Blog Archive » links for 2006-12-18
Pingback: ABC Digital Futures » Blog Archive » Time Magazine’s Person of the Year: You
Pingback: Venture Voice
Pingback: Ey Kullanici, Yilin Insani Sensin | Okyanus Ötesi
Pingback: knightopia.com | Journal » Blog Archive » Congratulations to You (and Me)
Pingback: Portland Press Herald OpEd at Maine Web Report
Pingback: “Mass think” over? « The Evening Shift
Pingback: PodeCrer » CommentsFirst and Predictions
Pingback: MediaBlog » Als Time 2.0 op de cover zet, wordt het tijd voor 3.0
Pingback: TIME’s Ironic and Regressive Pick for Person of the Year 2010 | ClayDuda.com
Pingback: People Always Protest Time’s Person of the Year Choice | Con Games
Pingback: TIME’s Ironic and Regressive Pick for Person of the Year 2010 | Clay Duda