NationStates Jolt Archive

Time Magazine declared President George W. Bush the "person of the year." The title goes to the person whom the editors determine had the greatest effect, good or bad, on the world by his or her actions during the past year. I think that although George W. Bush is a reasonable nomination for the title, Victor Yushchenko, leader of the Orange/Chestnut Revolution in the Ukraine, has had more of an effect on the world. The election in Ukraine is going to be much more influential than the U.S. election on world history. The Ukrainians are essentially voting on the fate of Democracy itself in their nation.
Does anyone else have someone you think should have been person of the year. If so, name the person and give your reason that this person was the most influential this year.

Michael Moore or Mel Gibson as they caused more controversy than any one other person.

Karl Rove or Dick Cheney.

At least acknowledge that the former is the reason Bush was elected and the latter is the real leader in the White House.

Karl Rove--he put enough lipstick on the pig of George W. Bush (with the help of a complicit, corporate media structure) to get him elected. That's a magic trick David Copperfield would be proud of, better even than the one that got him hooked up with Claudia Schiffer.

If you think about it, Karl Rove is smarter than the entire Democratic Party apparatus, and smarter than the whole team that tried to get Kerry elected.

Good or bad, he's fucking smart.

Margaret Hassan, perhaps - I do so hate it when Time makes a murderer their 'person of the year', after all.

Refused Party Program.

Originally posted by Incertonia:
with the help of a complicit, corporate media structure

The mainstream media detest George Bush. He has had the worst relationship with the media of any president since television became popular in the 1950s.

Although I do agree that Karl Rove was the master strategist for getting George Bush reelected.

Mr. T

Just because I see her ugly mug on just about every magazine cover I would say ...Lindsay Lohan

I swear that chick like has the biggest forehead in the world,...

The mainstream media detest George Bush. He has had the worst relationship with the media of any president since television became popular in the 1950s.
But they love his party because the Republicans give them deregulation and corporate welfare. Look up the comments by Sumner Redstone, CEO of Viacom for an example.

And if they hate him so badly, then why on earth wasn't he hammered on more of his ineptitude? Why didn't every newscast lead with Abu Ghraib throughout the month of November? Why did they parrot the retarded "John Kerry=flip-flopper" line? Why wasn't Bush called out on his woeful economic record? I could go on and on--fact is that the media was complicit in this election, just as they were complicit in the 2000 election when Gore got hammered for bullshit issues and Bush was given a free pass.

I agree with the choice of Bush simply because of the current and future impact of the Iraq war. While the war on terrorism isn't new anymore it's still causing headlines on a consistent basis.

Mr. T?
Did he do anything extraordinary this year. I haven't heard or read anything in the news about him.

Tony Blair should be Time's person of the year.

He spent that much time up Bush's arse that all we saw was the soles of his shoes that must surely make him super human?

The media also pushed the even more ignorant idea of "George Bush is an idiot." They didn't directly agree with it, just like the "John Kerry is a flip-flopper" idea; but they did give it some coverage, and it is just not news-worthy. When Peter Jennings interviewed Kerry, they talked about this for a short time. Also, by mentioning how many troops have died since "Major combat operations were declared over," which every media outlet does every time it mentions the war, they imply the idea that the war is a failure and George Bush underestimated its costs. However, major combat was over when Bush declared it: we now have military control of the Iraqi capital and most of the nation, minus a few thousand insurgents. The media should spend its time trying to gather the real facts of the war (like how many Iraqi civilians have died) instead of reporting facts that can only be interpreted as trying to make Bush's war look like a failure.

I think if not Bush then the logical choice is Ken Jennings. Not only is interest in him and impact from him not specialized to a political leaning (such as Michael Moore, Karl Rove, et al), but he had the enviable position of being near the sexy Alex Trebek all those weeks. It's person-of-the year worthy that he's still with his wife after that ;)

The media also pushed the even more ignorant idea of "George Bush is an idiot." They didn't directly agree with it, just like the "John Kerry is a flip-flopper" idea; but they did give it some coverage, and it is just not news-worthy. When Peter Jennings interviewed Kerry, they talked about this for a short time. Also, by mentioning how many troops have died since "Major combat operations were declared over," which every media outlet does every time it mentions the war, they imply the idea that the war is a failure and George Bush underestimated its costs. However, major combat was over when Bush declared it: we now have military control of the Iraqi capital and most of the nation, minus a few thousand insurgents. The media should spend its time trying to gather the real facts of the war (like how many Iraqi civilians have died) instead of reporting facts that can only be interpreted as trying to make Bush's war look like a failure.
If you actually believe the stuff you posted--that major combat operations are over, for instance, or that reporting the number of troops killed isn't actual news (or that it has a political bias), or that we actually have military control of anything but the smallest slice of the green zone, then you've made my point. Get this straight--the war is a failure and was doomed to be one from the beginning in part because the media gave the administration a free pass on every piece of bad planning and shitty intelligence from the beginning of this debacle.

I didn't say that reporting the overall number of troops killed has political bias or is not news worthy. I was questioning why the media constantly mentions the number of troops who have died since Bush made that statement. Why don't they also report the number of troops who died after senate democrats voted to not increase the funding for the war? The problem with the media is not that they favor one candidate or party over the other, it is that they get too involved in reporting opinions. The idea that it is horrendous that so many troops have died in Iraq after the war was supposed to be over is an opinion. War supporters would say that we should expect deaths during a war and during the stabalization of a country. The idea that John Kerry is a "flip-flopper" is an opinion.
When the media gets involved in reporting opinions as much as they are now, people don't change their mind because they become galvanized by hearing their opinions as "news." That is part of the reason the country is becoming so divided. The news no longer helps people to make informed opinions, it merely feeds the rhetoric.

And reporting that the war is a failure is an opinion. We may not have been as successful as the Republicans had planned, but Iraq is going to have a free election next month. War supporters would define that as success. The whole thing comes down to the opinion of which is more important, democracy for Iraq or the troops that we've lost in trying to secure it. The media should report both and let people come to an opinion based on these. However, it should not report how many troops have died in a very arbitrarily defined time-span that makes people think more about the lives lost than a free Iraq. The media should allow people to weigh these themselves given the pure facts of the war.

Margaret Hassan, perhaps - I do so hate it when Time makes a murderer their 'person of the year', after all.
You must be looking at your copy of Mother Jones who named Saddam Hussien person of the year for his "never-ending stuggle against America".