The point of Time's "Man of the Year" isn't who did the "best things" it's who had the "biggest impact" (whether its positive or negative). I remember back in either 2001-2002, there was big debate on whether they would give the title to Bush or bin Laden. Pertaining to Hitler and the title, he probably deserved the it since his actions caused millions of deaths and a world war, by far having the biggest worldwide impact of that particular year. However, I think you have a really good artifact, and you make great points in your response paper. I would suggest that you don't focus so much on "why" they pick a particular person, but more on "how" they go about doing it, and the discourse they use to justify their selection.
kind of along with phil, can't the idea of who made the biggest impact kinda of controversial? Maybe that is part of the appeal. I guess what I'm trying to say is if i walked past the mag and saw Bush as person of the year, I would think it was the dumbest thing I've ever heard, but still be intrigued as to how these idiots came to this conclusion. Therefore the mag might suck me in by being controversial. Does this make any sense?
Comments 2
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment