Time's "People of the Year" Choice Epitomizes MSM

[Annie]

The Gates and Bono

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004101.htm

TIME'S LAME CHOICES
By Michelle Malkin · December 18, 2005 10:17 AM

personsoftheyear.jpg

Okay. I don't question that the rock star and the world's biggest philanthropists are doing good for the world. (Interesting, isn't it, that Bill Gates didn't deserve the honor when he was actually creating something, but only earns Time magazine's highest praise when he's giving his money away. And, sorry, but Melinda Gates? She marries the software mogul after he has done his greatest work...and that makes her a co-person of the year?)

But if the magazine really wanted to "make a choice for the history books as well as one which is fresh and interesting, how could they pass over the brave people of Iraq?

iraqivoters.jpg

Or the brave people of Lebanon?

cedarrevolution.jpg

Or the brave people of Ukraine?

orangerevolution.jpg

Time is so out of touch that none of these historic revolutionaries--Purple, Cedar, and Orange--were recognized in its "People Who Mattered" section. Instead, the magazine singles out the likes of Cindy Sheehan, Hillary Clinton mimic Geena Davis, lying Joe Wilson and his wife, race-card rapper Kanye West, and teen golfer Michelle Wie--and devotes space to a 9-photo spread of Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush.

Lame. Just lame.

Tell Time's editors what you think of their choices here.

***

Reader Stephen R.:

These choices seem more appropriate in People magazine or US Weekly than in a "reputable" news source.​

Yup.

Steven Den Beste e-mails:

I think the unspoken subtext of this is that before he got married, Bill Gates was a carnivorous capitalist. Melinda tamed the beast, and that's why she's lauded.​

Bingo.

Tim Blair quips:

"...these Persons of the Year selections by Time magazine suck like a million Dysons."​

Ha! Be sure to send that to Time, Tim.

Jeff Harrell yawns:

When did Time become Us Weekly? Seriously, has it been that slow a news year? Is this really the best they could do?​

Reader Miranda S.:

Why doesn't Time magazine comemorate Ariel Sharon and the brave people of Israel, both pro-pullout and anti-pullout?
​

George at EU Rota has some news for Kanye West.

Ed Morrissey:

Ukrainians had their Orange Revolution; the Lebanese forced the Syrians to beat a hasty retreat across the Bekaa Valley after 29 years of military occupation following the murder of a pro-freedom statesman; and Iraqis faces bombs and death threats three times to in voting for a democracy and a new constitution to replace a genocidal tyrant in the heart of the Middle East, the first time that has ever occurred in an Arab nation.

Pick any of those examples, or roll them up into one pro-democracy movement that has tyranny on its heels throughout Southwest Asia and North Africa. Those were the real newsmakers this year. Instead, Time decided to go as obscure as it possibly could and picked three fine people whose impact on 2005 will have us all wondering what the hell they did to deserve the cover of Time by 2007.​

 

[NATO AIR]

I agree that a better choice would have been the brave people of Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine and Lebanon.

however, I have no issues with Bono or Bill Gates getting awarded.

Both have revolutionized "doing good for the world".

Gates is doing a far better job at providing foreign aid than the US government, UN and every other NGO on the planet. His innovative strategy: run his program like a business... if he sets up an AIDS clinic in Tanzania, within 3 years it will be self-sufficient, with its own nursing center/school built nearby to introduce a new crop of trained nurses and care providers every year after a 3 year school, and just miles away a small plastics center that can create the prequisite needles and other items the clinic needs. Absolutely revolutionary in this day and age compared to what everyone else is doing.

Gates scares the hell out of NGO's, governments and other wealthy individuals who hand out money because he's highly competitive in the sense that he spurs reform, innovation and efficency.

If he continues at the pace he's on now (28 billion dollars or so "invested" (not donated) in various development and health care innovations), there could be tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions of people, who will indirectly or directly benefit from his programs.

He's America's best represenative overseas, the intelligent, astute capitalist with a concern for the future.

Bono is a new breed of celebrity, highly educated about his cause, well-travelled with it, well-versed in the politics and schematics of advocating the cause. Besides star power and charisma, there is a damn good reason everyone from Jesse Helms to Barrack Obama pay attention to Bono, he know's what he's talking about and he means what he's saying. He's also not like some celebrities and advocates/activists who don't know when to say when, he's quite politically awaree of his limitations and his strengths. He's willing to compromise, he's willing to deal.

 

[fuzzykitten99]

i guess i don't have an issue with bill gates. he took an idea and ran with it, and uses some of his own money towards the greater good.

i still don't know what Bono is known for other than singing (and not all that great IMO), and running his mouth about American things when he's not even from this country. People say he does all this charity work and he knows what he's talking about, etc. How is this? Their tour schedule doesn't look like it allows for much time to do anything. Not only that, why is it HE who knows what he's talking about? Has he run a country? Been elected into ANY office? Run a business (no, his band doesn't count-he has an agent for that)?

Yes, I know everyone is going to say I am biased, and yes, I am. So what of it? But J.K. Rowling was on the list for voting as well. I think she should be in place of Bono. She frequently donates signed Harry Potter books and large sums of money to charitable organizations, namely multiple sclerosis charities. She uses her influential powers to aid those who are in need of help, such as the mentally disabled children who had been caged in hospitals in the Czech Republic. She has reintroduced kids to reading books-a skill that no charity can throw enough money at to do the same. And she doesn't need a press release done for any of it.

 

[Gem]

I just don't think that being a nice, filthy rich person who gives to charity (even if you give millions), should qualify you for "Person/People of the Year."

I know people who give 10% of their salaries to Habitat for Humanity every year without fail...not to mention the weekends they spend building homes for people in need...I can tell you without doubt, their 10% to charity hurts them A LOT more than the Gates' donations hurt them, why not choose someone whose donations actually mean giving up luxuries for themselves?

Please don't misunderstand, I have quite a bit of respect for Bill Gates and Bono...and I do not begrudge them their money, they've earned it...good for them. I admire them greatly for the amount they give...I just don't think what they do is worthy of that label...

Not when, as others have so wisely pointed out...we have people who brave death every day to make a difference in the future of their families and their nations.

If Time wants to be Politically Correct...how about giving the title to the brave women of Iraq and Afganistan?

 

[NATO AIR]

i have a better idea now.

zarqawi and the dems like pelosi, kennedy, kerry and dean.

"for showing us the true face of the evil we fight in the WOT and for showing the world the futility and shame of backing down from the fight"