Obviously Assange should be the person of the year. Although I personally dislike him for being such a popularity whore, it's obvious Time magazine has been pressured to choose someone less controversial.
But what happened to original principles of this award? Hitler was the person of the year for 1938. This award went always to the person with the highest impact on news. What the heck happened this year? Time magazine is becoming irrelevant.
Who knows what this decision will look like ten years from now - one can imagine Zuckerberg looking like a pretty plausible choice.
However, I agree that the trend you're talking about definitely exists. The most egregious recent example is Rudy Giuliani instead of Osama bin Laden in 2001, a decision which looks even stranger today than it did nine years ago.
it's obvious Time magazine has been pressured to choose someone less controversial
I feel that a far more gloomy and more likely scenario is that companies like Time, Mastercard, etc etc have not been pressured significantly or at all by government
The older you get, the more responsibilities and (financial) risk you have, the harder it becomes to think outside the box and swim upstream. I think it is perfectly plausible that people in their position decided on there own that supporting Assange was a step to far into a brave new world :-)
It seems like I'm in a minority, but I don't think there's anything wrong with choosing Zuckerberg over Assange - Facebook has been hugely influential on society, in a way that Wikileaks has so far only promised to be. (I'm not saying that Wikileaks doesn't herald some kind of revolution, but said revolution hasn't happened yet IMO).
I was going to draw parallels to Bill Gates getting the award, though it turns out that was in the '00s, for his philanthropy, not in the '80s for Microsoft. The '82 award to "The Computer" and '06 award to "You" are in the same vein, though (even if the second one was a bit silly).
Wikileaks only really hit the mainstream news less than a month ago. They've obviously been putting this piece together for longer than that. A runner-up article, on the other hand, can be pasted together pretty quickly.
Facebook has, this year however, become a mega force, ingrained in society, and pushing to become an all encompassing layer OVER all of reality.
I would say WikiLeaks should be "named" next year (depending on whether anything actually changes / consequences are met with the disclosures). Currently WikiLeaks is in its "infancy" of impact / effect.
Given that the article is published already,it's quite possible that they made the decision before cablegate. Plus it's supposed to be for the year as a whole. While Assange has released other stuff this year (collateral murder, etc), until cablegate, a pretty small segment of the population knew about Wikileaks
You don’t even have to go back to Hitler and Stalin. Vladimir Putin (Person of the Year in 2007) was an at least as ambiguous Person of the Year as Assange would be.
(I’m not sure about your conspiracy theory, though.)
Of course there is no objective choice on that, but to give a bit of counterweight to that, I would note that Assange didn't leaked the information. He published it. He was not the one risking prison for getting the data out of the US network. Also the mainstream don't care that much about Assange like the geeks & journalists do. Most people don't care about the cables either.
Zuckerberg, though, created a tool that is used by many many people, and impacts much there daily life and the way they interact together. Facebook brought social networks to the masses.
Assange is in the runner-up, and history will tell what the right choice was.
Also finally, I would have expected the crowd here to be a bit more happy to see a geek - and startup founder - make the headline.
I don't know what Zuckerberg is doing there, but let's hold off on peddling completely unfounded conspiracy theories. More likely, and less unfounded: Old-style news organizations are scared positively pantless by the fact that a blogger (He's a guy with a computer, if that's not a blogger, WHAT IS!?) was in charge of not just one, but quite a few, of the top news stories this year.
I saw that a while ago. This is why The Onion is so good, sometimes when they hit an issue they knock it out of the park in a way that nobody else can.
Our news media, in all forms, has become increasingly infotainment for quite some time now.
Can someone explain to me how Wikileaks changed the world? I'm not trying to be provocative, but seriously what is all that different now than it was two months ago?
What is everyone's opinion on the Chilean Miners getting a runner up place (as opposed to none)? I was a bit surprised. It is incredible and inspiring that they survived, and the feats of engineering required to save them were remarkable (although those people aren't receiving an award), but do you think even they feel they should be runners up to this prize?
It was fortunate that they survived, and they did what anybody in their position would by trying to stay calm and hold out, but their circumstances were not that unique. In West Virginia in April this year 29 miners died, but that is "old news" now to everybody except those in the immediate area. How many people are tortured, raped, wrongfully imprisoned annually? It is horrible but I'd rather suffer being in a dark, hot and humid mine for a few months and escape a hero and celebrity (with book deals) than be tortured or raped continuously, with nobody fighting to get me out of that situation.
Maybe I am missing the point of the prize; which is to reward media attention. In which case why not reward X Factor, American Idol or whatever winners instead? Far more people know them.
I don't even know about inspiring. It's just accident-porn, inflated by a publicity-craving Chilean government and blow way out of proportions by an all too willing international press.
Wait?! Time's person of the year WAS Julian Assange as decided by the online community. TIME just chose to make Mark Zuckerberg the person of the year. In their words "though TIME's editors who choose the actual Person of the Year reserve the right to disagree".
I totally agree with this. Farmville is such a game-changer. Distributing whistleblower messages that expose corruption doesn't bear any significance in front of Facebook's vision of making everybody friends. <3
RiderOfGiraffes, is that you? If not, I suggest that you do the same as he; pointing people to the stories that have tons of comments on them. In this case, none really do yet, so maybe a note about that?
Great choice, forget about that Nobel Peace prize guy who is locked up for freedom of thought and speech or something about democracy... It's a hard name to remember anyway.
Nice contrast, huh? Instead of some guy who fights for freedom and democracy and symbolizes a struggle against a tyrannical regime, let's choose some smug rich punk who is working with the government to catalog info about every citizen in the US.
What a joke. If I had any respect left for institutions like time, I'd be shedding it.
Facebook is a new, proprietary way for people to do what they were going to do on the internet already, without Facebook. I don't feel that it has been influential on society as a whole - the entire electronics revolution has.
I'd rather see Steve up here with an iPad, personally. Or perhaps someone who has influenced the actual direction of history.
Nice safe choice for Time, huh? Underscores their commitment to undermining the entire world of journalism by making news as bland and irrelevant as possible.
I am sure TIME had this picked out by October at the latest - it just had to go through editing, proof-reading, printing, etc. for a while and they kind of missed Wikileaks in the process. While I think it's not an excuse, it was probably chosen before Wikileaks released even one of the cables that are a big deal now.
While this isn't the first time wikileaks has been in the news, am I the only one that sees a problem with people's seeming interest in awarding this to whatever person is in the news closest to the time of the reveal?
Wikileaks has been in the public conscious for maybe a month (combined) this entire year. Regardless of your politics, you have to admit the Tea Party has been ever-present and incredibly effective at changing the makeup of our government and getting their message out. I don't see how wikileaks has that same (perceived) effect on everyday Americans' lives.
Here's a question... if there was no Facebook vs if there was no Wikileaks, which would impact the world the most now and going forward?
If there's no Facebook I honestly don't think the world changes all that much. People are on MySpace, and some of the other social networks are more popular. 10 years down the line, I don't think the world looks noticeably different. Whereas I think with Wikileaks the whole dynamics of US foreign relations will change.
Both are speculative, but I do think that Wikileaks is more impactful than Facebook. With that said,if they gave the award to "the social network", I'd be in more agreement.
[+] [-] lubos|15 years ago|reply
But what happened to original principles of this award? Hitler was the person of the year for 1938. This award went always to the person with the highest impact on news. What the heck happened this year? Time magazine is becoming irrelevant.
[+] [-] mlinsey|15 years ago|reply
However, I agree that the trend you're talking about definitely exists. The most egregious recent example is Rudy Giuliani instead of Osama bin Laden in 2001, a decision which looks even stranger today than it did nine years ago.
[+] [-] maurits|15 years ago|reply
I feel that a far more gloomy and more likely scenario is that companies like Time, Mastercard, etc etc have not been pressured significantly or at all by government
The older you get, the more responsibilities and (financial) risk you have, the harder it becomes to think outside the box and swim upstream. I think it is perfectly plausible that people in their position decided on there own that supporting Assange was a step to far into a brave new world :-)
[+] [-] rmc|15 years ago|reply
Some other notable choices:
Joseph Stalin, 1939 Ayatollah Khomeini, 1979
[+] [-] IsaacL|15 years ago|reply
I was going to draw parallels to Bill Gates getting the award, though it turns out that was in the '00s, for his philanthropy, not in the '80s for Microsoft. The '82 award to "The Computer" and '06 award to "You" are in the same vein, though (even if the second one was a bit silly).
[+] [-] ThomPete|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] amalcon|15 years ago|reply
I wouldn't assume malice just yet.
[+] [-] ErrantX|15 years ago|reply
(Although weirdly it's not very obvious from the main "100" landing page)
[+] [-] HaloZero|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] salemh|15 years ago|reply
I would say WikiLeaks should be "named" next year (depending on whether anything actually changes / consequences are met with the disclosures). Currently WikiLeaks is in its "infancy" of impact / effect.
[+] [-] jackowayed|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ugh|15 years ago|reply
(I’m not sure about your conspiracy theory, though.)
[+] [-] maigret|15 years ago|reply
Zuckerberg, though, created a tool that is used by many many people, and impacts much there daily life and the way they interact together. Facebook brought social networks to the masses.
Assange is in the runner-up, and history will tell what the right choice was.
Also finally, I would have expected the crowd here to be a bit more happy to see a geek - and startup founder - make the headline.
[+] [-] unknown|15 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] mseebach|15 years ago|reply
I don't know what Zuckerberg is doing there, but let's hold off on peddling completely unfounded conspiracy theories. More likely, and less unfounded: Old-style news organizations are scared positively pantless by the fact that a blogger (He's a guy with a computer, if that's not a blogger, WHAT IS!?) was in charge of not just one, but quite a few, of the top news stories this year.
[+] [-] david927|15 years ago|reply
http://www.theonion.com/video/time-announces-new-version-of-...
[+] [-] Synaesthesia|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] InclinedPlane|15 years ago|reply
Our news media, in all forms, has become increasingly infotainment for quite some time now.
[+] [-] lwhi|15 years ago|reply
2010 was the year Wikileaks changed the world.
[+] [-] hexis|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] linhir|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jasonlotito|15 years ago|reply
Wikileaks is also not just a 2010 phenom.
[+] [-] mikedmiked|15 years ago|reply
It was fortunate that they survived, and they did what anybody in their position would by trying to stay calm and hold out, but their circumstances were not that unique. In West Virginia in April this year 29 miners died, but that is "old news" now to everybody except those in the immediate area. How many people are tortured, raped, wrongfully imprisoned annually? It is horrible but I'd rather suffer being in a dark, hot and humid mine for a few months and escape a hero and celebrity (with book deals) than be tortured or raped continuously, with nobody fighting to get me out of that situation.
Maybe I am missing the point of the prize; which is to reward media attention. In which case why not reward X Factor, American Idol or whatever winners instead? Far more people know them.
[+] [-] mseebach|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rbanffy|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mikedmiked|15 years ago|reply
I am ashamed to say that I did not understand this reference at first. To anybody else who did not understand: http://www.prosebeforehos.com/image-of-the-day/08/24/huxley-...
[+] [-] random42|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eogas|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] moontear|15 years ago|reply
Julian Assange led the vote by ~ 150000 votes.
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2...
[+] [-] ra|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mfukar|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DupDetector|15 years ago|reply
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2003942 - readwriteweb.com - no comments
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2001882 - time.com - no comments
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1990612 - time.com - 1 comment
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1975517 - time.com - no comments
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1968958 - time.com - no comments
Edited to add comment count in response to replies below.
[+] [-] steveklabnik|15 years ago|reply
RiderOfGiraffes, is that you? If not, I suggest that you do the same as he; pointing people to the stories that have tons of comments on them. In this case, none really do yet, so maybe a note about that?
[+] [-] duck|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] binarray2000|15 years ago|reply
Hackers.
[+] [-] jamesbressi|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] code_duck|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nightlifelover|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] code_duck|15 years ago|reply
Facebook is a new, proprietary way for people to do what they were going to do on the internet already, without Facebook. I don't feel that it has been influential on society as a whole - the entire electronics revolution has.
I'd rather see Steve up here with an iPad, personally. Or perhaps someone who has influenced the actual direction of history.
Nice safe choice for Time, huh? Underscores their commitment to undermining the entire world of journalism by making news as bland and irrelevant as possible.
[+] [-] setori88|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] esponapule|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] invisible|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ZachPruckowski|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] maguay|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] untamedmedley|15 years ago|reply
Wikileaks has been in the public conscious for maybe a month (combined) this entire year. Regardless of your politics, you have to admit the Tea Party has been ever-present and incredibly effective at changing the makeup of our government and getting their message out. I don't see how wikileaks has that same (perceived) effect on everyday Americans' lives.
[+] [-] ffffruit|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bryanwb|15 years ago|reply
I still haven't seen any significant revelations come out of wikileaks, so I think they were right to not pick Assange
[+] [-] ffffruit|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kenjackson|15 years ago|reply
If there's no Facebook I honestly don't think the world changes all that much. People are on MySpace, and some of the other social networks are more popular. 10 years down the line, I don't think the world looks noticeably different. Whereas I think with Wikileaks the whole dynamics of US foreign relations will change.
Both are speculative, but I do think that Wikileaks is more impactful than Facebook. With that said,if they gave the award to "the social network", I'd be in more agreement.
[+] [-] franze|15 years ago|reply