Time's BS response re "Person of the Year"

[ailsagirl]

I sent a very strong email (no bad language, just outrage) to Time and they responded:

Dear Reader:

We regret your disappointment over the selection of President Bush as TIME's Person of the Year. But perhaps we should remind you of the traditional standard by which the editors make their annual choice. The Person of the Year is not an award or a tribute. The question at the center of the selection process is, Who or what, for better or worse, has affected the way we live today? The answer to that question could be a force for good (for example, Winston Churchill, Man of the Year, 1940; Dwight Eisenhower, 1944) or for evil (Adolf Hitler, Man of the Year, 1939; Ayatullah Khomeini, 1979). And to the latter, President George W. Bush must be added for 2004 -- there is no one else whose agenda and actions in the past year had such universal impact. As managing editor Jim Kelly noted in his Letter From the Editor, Bush has had his highs and lows over the past four years, but in the end he prevailed in the 2004 election by "persuading a majority of voters this time around that he deserved to be in the White House for another four years."

Thank you for writing. We appreciated having the opportunity to respond to your concerns.

I responded by saying that the * did NOT win either election, that this election was rigged, and that Republican corporations are running the show.

[Pam-Moby]

1. I agree

:toast:

[deadparrot]

2. But they called him evil. :)

[complain jane]

3. Yeah, right?

I thought I must be seeing things!

[deadparrot]

5. I had to read it about ten times to see if they had really said that.

[The Doctor.]

6. "And to the latter..." Yep - there it is.

Apparently TIME magazine editors are aware of the illiteracy of Bush** supporters. They knew only smart people would pick that up.

[Guaranteed]

12. LOL I had to look like three times. nt

[Osamasux]

4. Their own survey is showing they made the wrong choice

Question is "Do you agree with TIME's choice for Person of the Year?"

Current Results:
Yes__ 43.2%
No___ 56.8%

http://www.time.com/time/personoftheyear/2004/story.html

[Endangered Specie]

7. Bet they wont show THAT.

pathetic isnt it?

[lpbk2713]

9. The asshole's losing ground.

At this time it's...... Y=42.9%........N=57.1%

9917 Votes have been cast. Including mine.

Thanks for the link.

[Silverhair]

10. That's because most people think it is an award. NT

[merwin]

8. What the hell is everyone so mad about?

The letter says that Bush is evil :toast:

[ailsagirl]

14. That may be BUT putting his ugly mug on the cover of a

national news magazine (if you want to call it "news") is not calculated to make him any less smug!! He already thinks he's hot stuff (God knows why-- he's made a complete MESS out of everything). I hate to see things that will make him preen all that much more.

I don't buy what Time said, anyway... that's just to placate people. He's in bed with them or they're in bed with him-- however you wish to put it: they're on HIS side.

[Silverhair]

11. I bet they have a different one they send to Bush supporters. NT

[LynnTheDem]

13. bush is evil.

Do you agree with TIME's choice for Person of the Year?


Yes 41.6%

NO 58.5%

Although I'd have voted a HUGE "yes"...IF Time had put

"The answer to that question could be a force for good (for example, Winston Churchill, Man of the Year, 1940; Dwight Eisenhower, 1944) or for evil (Adolf Hitler, Man of the Year, 1939; Ayatullah Khomeini, 1979). And to the latter, President George W. Bush must be added for 2004"

in their article.

[mdhunter]

15. By their own criteria, they made the right choice

That doesn't mean we have to like Bush any more - but it's undeniable that his influence, presence, and asshattery are more widely felt than is any other person's.

[rman]

16. * has indeed, for better or worse, affected the way we live

Regardless of (or because of, if you will) stolen elections and corporate control of government.
He fits right in there with Hitler and Stalin.