Time magazine has declared the winner of "The Person Of The Year" contest. Guess who – you would have never believed it before it was announced! U.S. President Barack Obama – probably one of the least probable of choices.
By Boris Volkhonsky: To the credit of the organizers of the contest, it should be remembered that the "Person of the Year" title does not necessarily mean an approval of the winner. Adolf Hitler back in 1938, or Joseph Stalin (1939 and 1942), or Ayatollah Khomeini (1979), among others, could hardly expect a word of praise from the editors of a mainstream American magazine. The tradition of naming freaks as laureates is also present in the whole process – otherwise who would ever nominate (least of all, grant the title) Mikhail Gorbachev (1989), or the collective "You" (2006) as representing millions of internet bloggers (including your humble author, probably), or "The Protestor" (2011) representing such diverse phenomena, as, for example, the Tea Party, the Arab Spring, Occupy Movement, or scattered marginal groups protesting on Moscow streets. It is a common practice that before declaring the winner, the Time editorial board consults its readers. This year, the readers' choice was clear – the new leader of North Korea Kim Jong Un. It can be disputed whether he deserved the nomination in 2012, or some thirty years earlier (the global media are not sure about the exact year of his birth which is some time between 1982 and 1984), when he was lucky enough to be born into the ruling family of his country. But anyway, the readers made their choice. Then the editorial board easily discarded it. So the first question concerns the relationship between Time magazine (in fact, any media) and its readers. Who matters more to whom – and aren't the readers really the ones that have the casting vote in the relationship. Definitely, the editors seem to think the other way round. But, coming back to the Person of this particular year – it is not uncommon for Time magazine to name one person two times. Barack Obama was awarded the title back in 2008, and that may be quite understandable even for those who are far from being his fans. His victory in 2008, "The Change" the Americans thought they "Can Believe In", the enthusiasm that swept across the country and the rest of the globe – all this was enough to make Obama s symbolic figure. It remains doubtful why the following year the Nobel Committee awarded him the Nobel Prize, even though he had done nothing at all to demonstrate he was serious in his promises – but that's another story, and such questions should be posed to the Nobel Committee rather that to the Time editors. But after the four years of one of the most unimpressive presidencies in the modern US history, when the country is facing the deepening crisis and swiftly approaching the inevitable "fiscal cliff", and the President has done nothing to prevent it (least so, fulfill most of the promises given back in 2008), the editors' choice is, at least, puzzling. Of course, few would expect the North Korean leader to appeal to the editors' hearts. Also, one would hardly expect people like Julian Assange to receive an honor from American media (sluts from Pussy Riots would seem a more probable choice). But does that mean that the year was totally devoid of any bright characters? A look at the list of the runners-up shows that among other candidates we see the following. Number two is Malala Yousufzai, a Pakistani girl, frightened to death by the violence surrounding her and expressing her fears in her internet diary. Later, her fears were exploited by the elder members of her family to project her as something of a symbol of girls' fight for equal rights. And after she was "framed up" this way, the thugs from Pakistani Taliban shot and severely wounded her, thus adding to the symbolism and ensuring the career of her family elders. Other finalists included: Egyptian president Mohamed Morsi; Bill and Hillary Clinton; Yahoo! CEO Marissa Mayer; Apple CEO Tim Cook, and the three scientists who discovered the Higgs Boson particle. In this context one may only thank the editors for their choice. But when it comes to the arguments why the choice was eventually made in favor of Barack Obama, one cannot refrain from expressing surprise. Indeed, the logic is brilliant – according to Time managing editor Rick Stengel, Barack Obama was chosen due to his "re-election despite a higher unemployment rate than anybody's had to face in basically in 70 years" and the fact that "He's the first Democrat to actually win two consecutive terms with over 50 percent of the vote" since Franklin Delano Roosevelt. So, the high unemployment rate is a factor that has led to the nomination. And, by the way, Republican President (arguably the greatest American president of post-WWII time) Ronald Reagan was not named "The Person Of the Year". And if Obama's re-election was the core reason, than, frankly, it was Mitt Romney who deserved the title. If the GOP had put forward a more competitive candidate, Barak Obama would hardly have had any chances. Source: Voice of Russia
