My letter to Time

[rpannier]

After seeing your choice for Person of the Year, I have to say I will NEVER buy, read or allow your magzine in my home again. Your choice for person of the year is amazingly pathetic. You try and hide behind this myth that you pick the Person who, for better or worse, shaped the world around them, yet you refused to pick Osama Bin Laden in 2001, who was the most obvious choice for Better or Worse. In my estimation you choose people whose controversial qualities will not greatly affect your readership. Time has fallen so far from the 40's and 50's when you were a real magazine.

Richard Pannier

[still_one]

1. excellent letter

and very clearly put, but I bet you don't get a reply

[rpannier]

3. Probably not

But it made me feel better.

[ailsagirl]

5. I bet you do!! The same BS reply I and others got...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1444806&mesg_id=1444806

and

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1443956&mesg_id=1443956

[TwentyFive]

2. The truth hurts. Time is out of time.

[Laurab]

4. I got a reply to mine - it's posted somewhere, but read:

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.

Best wishes.


TIME Letters

[blackangrydem]

6. The fact that they have a standard response just for folks

unhappy that Bush got it is telling.