As Time Goes "Buy"
(CBS/AP)
Today the magazine is holding a panel to discuss who’s going to be the big newsmaker this year, and it’s going to be a tough call. After all, who stood out in 2007?
There’s a little more to the equation than you’d think, remember. It’s not an award. It’s not even a compliment. The magazine says the distinction goes to “the person or persons who most affected the news and our lives, for good or ill.” Heck, Person of the Year doesn’t even have to be a person – Earth won once, and so did The Computer.
Time is holding an online poll right now, listing off ten possibilities. (Look! There go all the Ron Paul readers!) Some of the ones they’re tossing out? Al Gore, Barack Obama, Condoleeza Rice, J. K Rowling, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, General David Petraeus.
All notable public figures, to be sure. But none of them has a chance. The Time magazine decision is a complicated calculus of risk and PR, with a dash of quirk tossed in. It’s definitely a good annual publicity ploy by the magazine, but it always has a financial angle as well. Over the past 25 years, the magazine's decision has devolved into choosing a safe, newsworthy and palatable cover person or people.
So who might get it? It’s easier to say who won’t. And why.
We’re entering what will be a withering presidential election, with the parties deciding their candidates within weeks of the magazine’s decision – so there’s no chance Time will enter the political fray by putting a candidate (or psuedo-candidate like Gore) on the cover, irritating some readers and potentially costing the magazine subscribers.
It’s also not likely to be a potential threat like Ahmadinejad. Regardless of what they say about it being a value-neutral decision, Time has clearly adopted a No Bad Guys rule since their Ayatullah Khomeini decision in 1979. (Some of you would likely put 1998 co-recipient Ken Starr in that category, though.) They can claim all they want that the cover goes to whoever, “good or ill,” but that’s simply not the case any longer. Bad news sells papers, but bad guys apparently don’t sell magazines.
After all, if they didn’t have the guts to come out and openly admit that Osama bin Laden was the biggest newsmaker of 2001 – opting instead for a feel-good Rudy Giuliani story – then there’s it's tough to imagine a person wearing black hat would get the distinction.
It’s a tough call for 2007, though, having not had a real banner headline person this year. But if recent history is any guide, look for a reassuring storyline (soldiers, philanthropists) or an innovative business baron (Steve Jobs with the iPhone would fit) that is easy to publicize, just not a newsworthy domestic political player or a threat from abroad.
But yeah, you''re right. If they''re sucking up to me like that, there''s no chance it''s going to be anybody edgy, unless they want to spite you.
Thinking back though, it''s difficult to think of a dynamic changing event (was the Democratic takeover this year? But who would get the credit?)
If it''s import, then clearly, Bush deserves his mug on the cover. It''s hard to remember a more transformative Presidency than his. But not this year.
expresident who has continued to lead in the best tradition of a former world leader recognized throughout the world for his unselfish dedication to helping the
less fortunate.
It''s bizarre, isn''t it? Mega-media hates the man but loves the traffic.