TIME is right on target, but their thematic articles are banal and not engaging. Complete crap.
Agreed on both points.
I am happy to see that in praising dispersed contributors to the net Time took the opportunity to bash “great men” (emphasis added):
The “Great Man” theory of history is usually attributed to the Scottish philosopher Thomas Carlyle, who wrote that “the history of the world is but the biography of great men.” He believed that it is the few, the powerful and the famous who shape our collective destiny as a species. That theory took a serious beating this year.
To be sure, there are individuals we could blame for the many painful and disturbing things that happened in 2006.
Yes, because it is only possible to be “great” through doing great harm. Time:
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 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.
Yes, it is the anti-authoritarian age. Time:
But 2006 gave us some ideas. This is an opportunity to build a new kind of international understanding, not politician to politician, great man to great man, but citizen to citizen, person to person.
Even more of a stretch, I’ll take opportunity to link in another of my pet peeves.
The short person of the year article also references directly or indirectly Wikipedia, blogs, open source, peer production, and free culture.
I occasionally wonder what it would feel like to read a mass media article and more or less think “right on!” Now that I have encountered such an article, should I enjoy it, reconsider what makes me agree, considering the source, or reconsider my assumption that Time and similar are emotionalized diarrhea magazines rather than news magazines, just like TV?