The news this morning is that President Bush has been choosen as man of the year. While I did not have a favorite in this year's race for man of the Year, there were better coices. Karl Rove whose sucess I find frustrating would have been a better choice. For better or worse, his skill has had a major impact on our politics.
Michael Moore and Mel Gibson both had significant impacts on our divided culture. Finally, terrorists would have been a more realisitic, if offensive, choice. This would have been in keeping with some of those chosen in the past.
Major cirminals such as Hitler and Stalin have graced the cover of Time as Man of the Year. In 2001, I believe the "choice" of Man of the Year lost its integrity. That year, the magazine chose Roudy Guliani. While his actions after 9/11 where impressive they were not historical. People were willing to forget his conduct as mayor. Only recently, with the controversy of Mr. Keirk, have we been reminded of the controversial naature of the Guliani administration pre 9/11. As someone who was in lower manhattan on the moring of 9/11, the obivious choice, based on the willingness to chose Stalin and Hitler in the past was Osama Bin Laden. The unwillingness to confront any anger by the american people in general and the conservative press in particular led to the 2001 choice.
Today, before the announcement, I expected the president to be chosen.
Some will say this is evidence of the magazine leaning Republican or currying favor with the powerful. I believe it is the choice of the bottom line over journalistic integrity. I do not rule out currying favor with an admin istration noted for its secrecy to help the bottom line. We do not live in an age of censorship but in something more troubling. We live in an age where our mainstream media leans toward self-censorship. For me, we saw this in the individuals named man of the year and the media's coverage in the run up to the invasion of Iraq.