I'm cancelling my subscription to TIME.

[cyn2]

I decided to do so as soon as I heard that * was made MOY.

Since then I've received the following email:

hello friends:

although I do not believe that frivolous economic boycotts accomplish much I thought this could be fun.

Magazines make their ad revenue through subscription sales not single issue. However, as an act of defiance I think Time Magazine deserves our wrath. Bush may be alot of things but Man of the Year does not immediately spring to mind.

Pass along if you wish.
______
Anyone else?

[Blue_In_AK]

1. If I had a subscription, I'd cancel for sure.

I almost gagged when I saw that. What ARE they thinking???

[mattclearing]

2. Hey, Hitler and Stalin were MOY too.

I wouldn't read too much into their choice.

The fact that our main strategy was ABB just re-inforces their choice.

[m0nkeyneck]

3. the little freak DID

dominate the news more than anyone else so....

[AmerDem]

9. Well read why Time chose him

"NEW YORK (Reuters) -- U.S. President George W. Bush's bold, uncompromising leadership and his clear-cut election victory made him Time magazine's Person of the Year for 2004, its managing editor said Sunday."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/12/19/time.moy.bush.reut/index.html


They don't equate his MOY title to dominating headlines they give it to him for superior leadership. If I had a Time subscription I to would cancel but then again I knew enough not waste my money on the CNN/Time propaganda machine.

[coloradodem2005]

15. I did not think his election victory was that "clear-cut".

I think that there were far more "clear cut" victories in elections.

[AmerDem]

18. Most of us here know it wasn't "clear cut"

Not to mention Time's total non mention of e-voting fraud, the Conyors hearings and Ohio's election irregularities state wide.

[dzika]

4. Time is owned by Time-Warner...

Same people that own CNN and the rest of Turners old network.

None of them are doing a good job anymore.

[propagandafreegal]

5. Here here nm

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

6. Hitler was Time's Man Of The Year Too, Along with Stalin, Nixon,

Haile Salassie, Kissinger, Ayatullah Khomeini and Ken Starr!!!!! So I'm not sweating this too much right now!

[goclark]

7. Cancelled a few months ago, will never renew

[WithStamina]

8. Man of the Year

This award is NOT who they think is the best person of the year. It's who made the most difference. They're not endorsing Bush.

[Terre]

24. It's all about PERCEPTION

I mentioned this before on a thread in dKos not too long ago, and I'll mention it here as well.

Not EVERYONE is familiar (or can remember with certainty) Time's MOY past choices, or their "reasoning" behind it. For many people (myself included), this choice makes it appear as if TIME is "validating the man" and/or giving him a "thumbs up".

Anyway, that's how I "perceive" their choice, and I find it offending. I'm sure others, unaware of what factors Time uses to decide on their choice, would agree.

[Bill McBlueState]

10. I cancelled mine about a month ago

It's the pro-corporate bias that ultimately turned me off. It seems like every couple weeks, they have a big special section geared toward cheerleading for big corporations. And all the "personal interest" type articles are geared toward people who have a ton of money to spend on technology. I can get my news elsewhere for free.

Oddly, they keep sending it to me, although the charge was taken off my credit card. That's their problem, I guess.

[cyn2]

12. Good to get feedback.....I found the REAL cover

[latteromden]

21. Love the quote in your signature - that was written on the whiteboard

at the Minnesota Kerry HQ in the phonebanking room and is now posted on my wall. :)

[Splinter Cell]

I'm pissed about it too, but I'm not gonna stop reading TIME

It's actually the best magazine out there, along with NEWSWEEK. I knew they would choose the chimp, because nobody else was on people's mind for the last year like he was.

Even if Kerry hadn't been screwed out of his election, Bush would have prob. been person of the year. I hate it too, but to stop reading one of the few media sources left with some dignity, would be a mistake imo.

[Warpy]

11. Not so fast!

One of the reasons they cited was "for reframing reality to match his design."

Now I maybe mistaken because I'm only a dumb lefty, but that sounds awfully close to elegantly calling him crazier than a shithouse rat.

The whole article seemed a little smarmy and tongue in cheek to me. You can read it at http://www.time.com/time/personoftheyear/2004/story.html if you have a strong stomach and a stronger sense of irony.

[greatscott15]

13. Will be Cancelling mine too

eom

[wtmusic]

16. So bold of them

AOL Time Warner is the largest media contributor to the GOP. There's no irony whatsoever.

[George W. Hayduke]

22. I agree...

That article was NOT flattering at all.

edit:Only Bush flattering himself, and HIS quotes about himself arne't flattering.

I thought the entire piece IS SMARMY AND TONGUE-IN-CHEEK. It reeks of subtle sarcasm.

You just have to read between the lines a little.

especially the part at the end about gambling 'our' future.

even makes me chuckle a little.

[GraphicQueen]

14. No need to worry really.

Time makes the Man of the Year or Person of the Year because that person(s) have made the news, whether it be good or bad.

Men of the Year

1927- Charles Lindbergh
1928- Walter Chrysler
1929- Owen Young
1930- Mahatma Gandhi
1931- Pierre Laval
1932- Franklin Delano Roosevelt
1933- Hugh Johnson
1934- Franklin Delano Roosevelt (2nd time)
1935- Haile Selassie
1936- Wallis Simpson
1937- Chiang Kai-Shek and Soong May-ling
1938- Adolf Hitler
1939- Joseph Stalin
1940- Winston Churchill
1941- Franklin Delano Roosevelt (3rd time)
1942- Joseph Stalin (2nd time)
1943- George Marshall
1944- Dwight Eisenhower
1945- Harry Truman
1946- James F. Byrnes
1947- George Marshall (2nd time)
1948- Harry Truman (2nd time)
1949- Winston Churchill (2nd time)
1950- The American Fighting-Man
1951- Mohammed Mossadegh
1952- Queen Elizabeth II
1953- Konrad Adenauer
1954- John Dulles
1955- Harlow Curtice
1956- Hungarian Freedom Fighter
1957- Nikita Khrushchev
1958- Charles De Gaulle
1959- Dwight Eisenhower (2nd time)
1960- U.S. scientists
1961- John F. Kennedy
1962- Pope John XXIII
1963- Martin Luther King Jr.
1964- Lyndon Johnson
1965- William Westmoreland
1966- Twenty-Five and Under
1967- Lyndon Johnson (2nd time)
1968- Frank Borman, Jim Lovell, William Anders
1969- The Middle Americans
1970- Willy Brandt
1971- Richard Nixon
1972- Richard Nixon (2nd time) and Henry Kissinger
1973- John Sirica
1974- King Faisal
1975- American Women
1976- Jimmy Carter
1977- Anwar Sadat
1978- Deng Xiaoping
1979- Ayatollah Khomeini
1980- Ronald Reagan
1981- Lech Walesa
1982- The Computer
1983- Ronald Reagan (2nd time) and Yuri Andropov
1984- Peter Ueberroth
1985- Deng Xiaoping (2nd time)
1986- Corazon Aquino
1987- Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev
1988- Endangered Earth ("Planet of the Year")
1989- Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev (2nd time)
1990- George H. W. Bush
1991- Ted Turner
1992- Bill Clinton
1993- Nelson Mandela, F.W. de Klerk, Yasser Arafat, and Yitzhak Rabin
1994- Pope John Paul II
1995- Newt Gingrich
1996- David Ho
1997- Andy Grove
1998- Bill Clinton (2nd time) and Kenneth Starr
Persons of the Year

1999- Jeffrey P. Bezos
2000- George W. Bush
2001- Rudolph Giuliani
2002- The whistleblowers: Cynthia Cooper of Worldcom, Sherron Watkins of Enron, and Coleen Rowley of the FBI
2003- The American Soldier
Person of the Century

20th century- Albert Einstein
See also: TIME Magazine's 100 most influential people of 2004.

Person of the Half-Century

1950 - Winston Churchill

[stray cat]

17. My e-mail to Time agreeing with the choice

Like your choice of Hilter, Stalin, Khomeni and the runner up Bin Laden, George Bush is a worthy person for man of the year. He has had a huge impact on our nation and worldwide. In his next term we will see whether the only Americans to benefit are the wealthy estate holders and large corporations.

I know I am certainly worse off now than I was four years ago. I believe most Americans and maybe even most Iraqis would agree.

http://www.time.com/time/personoftheyear/2004/story.html# =site to send e-mails

[goodboy]

19. I did the same....(nt)

[WI_DEM]

20. I'm not

Look Man of the Year is not so big--many villians were voted this and many presidents--mostly in the years they won or were re-elected, so Bush's selection was not surprising to me. If I cancelled subscriptions to every paper or magazine which published something offensive to me I'd probably be down to reading only my own writings. But I do disagree strenulously that Bush has any kind of mandate (51-48 is not a mandate) and wrote a letter to TIME letting them know that they need to put Bush's election results into true perspective.

[Desert Liberal]

23. Gee, ya think?

(snip)

The first TIME poll since the election has his approval rating at 49%. Gallup has it at 53%, which doesn't sound bad unless you consider that it's the lowest December rating for a re-elected President in Gallup's history. That is not a great concern, however, since he has run his last race, and it is not a surprise to a President who tends to measure his progress by the enemies he makes. "Sometimes you're defined by your critics," he says. "My presidency is one that has drawn some fire, whether it be at home or around the world. Unfortunately, if you're doing big things, most of the time you're never going to be around to see them , whether it be cultural change or spreading democracy in parts of the world where people just don't believe it can happen. I understand that. I don't expect many short-term historians to write nice things about me."
(snip)

Not write nice things about him? Surely he's kidding! The historians will write that he was the catalyst for the biggest revolution since America became a country...at least this Liberal lady hopes anyway.

And hopefully it WILL be the 'short-term' historians who write it!

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.