Monday, December 19, 2005
Time has really declined
I speak of the magazine Time. They have declared the persons of the year as being Bill Gates, Mrs. Gates (chosen because she married a rich guy, okay...), and Bono. Fine, philanthropy is good, but geeze, I would hardly call their efforts as defining what happened in 2005.
The magazine used to have balls, so to speak. They chose people like Hitler for person of the year. But, I guess I really shouldn't expect much. They chose Rudy Guiliani instead of UBL in 2001, even though Osama was clearly the right choice. What he masterminded defined 2001. Thus, he was person of the year, because of his nefariousness.
Time should have picked either Mother Nature, or the Iraqi people (considering they did vote several times this year and have been getting blown up and into the news all year) for this year. Mother Nature, even though it's a stretch and not even a real person, would have been the best choice, considering we've had the Tsunami and many Hurricanes this year, which made lots of news. Lots more news than Bono and Gates.
Time, bad choice. You've shown your lack of guts. And that you really don't understand what 'person of the year' (of course it used to be 'man of the year') really means. You're turning your own newsmaking creation into a meaningless mess.
And really, who wants to read a boring article about rich people spending their money, despite how good the causes have been? Writing about what really defined the year, the weather or Iraq, would have sold a lot more mags, I bet.
The magazine used to have balls, so to speak. They chose people like Hitler for person of the year. But, I guess I really shouldn't expect much. They chose Rudy Guiliani instead of UBL in 2001, even though Osama was clearly the right choice. What he masterminded defined 2001. Thus, he was person of the year, because of his nefariousness.
Time should have picked either Mother Nature, or the Iraqi people (considering they did vote several times this year and have been getting blown up and into the news all year) for this year. Mother Nature, even though it's a stretch and not even a real person, would have been the best choice, considering we've had the Tsunami and many Hurricanes this year, which made lots of news. Lots more news than Bono and Gates.
Time, bad choice. You've shown your lack of guts. And that you really don't understand what 'person of the year' (of course it used to be 'man of the year') really means. You're turning your own newsmaking creation into a meaningless mess.
And really, who wants to read a boring article about rich people spending their money, despite how good the causes have been? Writing about what really defined the year, the weather or Iraq, would have sold a lot more mags, I bet.
Comments:
Post a Comment
