Time's Person of the Year: Duke Alum a Finalist

[sagegrouse]

Tim Cook, CEO of Apple and Fuqua grad, is a finalist for the Time Magazine Person of the Year, to be announced tomorrow. Other finalists, I believe, are Marissa Mayer (CEO of Yahoo and new mom), Mr. and Mrs. Clinton, Obama, illegal immigrants, Malala Yousafzai (15YO Pakistani girl), and a couple of others whose identity zipped by on TV this AM.

I'm not sure Tim is the favorite.

sagegrouse

[CameronBornAndBred]

Tim Cook, CEO of Apple and Fuqua grad, is a finalist for the Time Magazine Person of the Year, to be announced tomorrow. Other finalists, I believe, are Marissa Mayer (CEO of Yahoo and new mom), Mr. and Mrs. Clinton, Obama, illegal immigrants, Malala Yousafzai (15YO Pakistani girl), and a couple of others whose identity zipped by on TV this AM.

I'm not sure Tim is the favorite.

sagegrouse

They've done ambiguous persons before, it would not surprise me if they chose to do someone such as "The Shooter". The person of the year has always been one that makes the most impact on the news, regardless of whether it is good or not.
That being said, I hope they don't.

[Mike Corey]

i.e., which cover subject will sell the most magazines...

[Wander]

I'd like Malala Yousafzai from that group. I'm sad that Curiosity Rover is not on the short list. I agree with CB&B that "The Shooter" makes sense too, keeping in mind of course that this distinction isn't necessarily an honor.

But most election years just go to the winning candidate. Though I think Nate Silver would be a better choice than Obama if you have to do an election-related thing.

[brevity]

I'd be surprised if any of those announced names became Person of the Year. I was under the impression that finalists were essentially people who were also considered, and that the real choice is kept under wraps.

Other thoughts:

1. I like the Nate Silver idea. There's a number of accompanying articles TIME can write about prognostication, statistics, and the Internet.
2. It's time that TIME changed the issue's title to Newsmaker of the Year, especially if they choose The Shooter or something like that. "Person of the Year" sounds like a personal accomplishment. "Newsmaker of the Year" is a neutral term that does not confer honor or approval.
3. That said, I think it goes to a named person rather than a concept. "The Protester" won last year.

I feel qualified to comment because I was named TIME's Person of the Year back in 2006.

[sagegrouse]

I'd be surprised if any of those announced names became Person of the Year. I was under the impression that finalists were essentially people who were also considered, and that the real choice is kept under wraps.

Other thoughts:

1. I like the Nate Silver idea. There's a number of accompanying articles TIME can write about prognostication, statistics, and the Internet.
2. It's time that TIME changed the issue's title to Newsmaker of the Year, especially if they choose The Shooter or something like that. "Person of the Year" sounds like a personal accomplishment. "Newsmaker of the Year" is a neutral term that does not confer honor or approval.
3. That said, I think it goes to a named person rather than a concept. "The Protester" won last year.

I feel qualified to comment because I was named TIME's Person of the Year back in 2006.

The list may have been real -- it was on Morning Joe. The Time editor is on Morning Joe every week with a preview of Time Magazine cover. He may have been there this AM. This was the tease; tomorrow is the announcement.

sagegrouse

[rthomas]

I agree with CB&B that "The Shooter" makes sense too, keeping in mind of course that this distinction isn't necessarily an honor.

yea, that would be just great. Let's give "The Shooter" all the pub they desire. That's the reward.

[TruBlu]

I'd be surprised if any of those announced names became Person of the Year. I was under the impression that finalists were essentially people who were also considered, and that the real choice is kept under wraps.

Other thoughts:

1. I like the Nate Silver idea. There's a number of accompanying articles TIME can write about prognostication, statistics, and the Internet.
2. It's time that TIME changed the issue's title to Newsmaker of the Year, especially if they choose The Shooter or something like that. "Person of the Year" sounds like a personal accomplishment. "Newsmaker of the Year" is a neutral term that does not confer honor or approval.
3. That said, I think it goes to a named person rather than a concept. "The Protester" won last year.

I feel qualified to comment because I was named TIME's Person of the Year back in 2006.

I am pretty sure they were talking about me, not you. Wait, I think I just contradicted myself.

Time would have made this clearer if they had said "Y'all".

[OldPhiKap]

If nominated, I will not run. If elected, I will not serve.

If there is a nice fruit basket or something, though, send that right over.

[blazindw]

It's the President: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2327135.html

[CrazyNotCrazie]

Given that Time is now only marginally more relevant than its former partner-in-crime Life and will soon go the way of its former competitor Newsweek once Time Inc. stops wasting shareholder value and supporting its losses, I'm not sure what the continued fascination is with the choice of Time's "Person of the Year". I think it is somewhat interesting for folks like us to discuss on a message board, but it doesn't really deserve air time on the news. A hearty Mazel Tov to President Obama for winning this award, but I'm guessing he would be more excited about winning a game of pickup with Reggie.

[hurleyfor3]

In a couple days, they're gonna regret not making it "The Mayans".

[JasonEvans]

I thought it was worth noting that there was no time for Time to name "The Shooter" its Newsmaker of the Year. The issue has been written and in edit for at least a couple weeks, I suspect. Pivoting, at this point, would be nearly impossible. As of a few days ago, "The Shooter" would have made no sense as a potential Newsmaker of the Year.

I hate that they picked Obama. What an obvious and uninspired choice. They picked him in 2008 too, which made sense. But, they picked Bush in 2004 and 2000 and picked Clinton in 1992 (they went with AIDS researched David Ho in 1996 but went back to Clinton at the height of the Lewinski scandal in 1998). It is just so easy to pick the person who wins the presidency. I can see it if they win in truly notable fashion, but a sitting president winning re-election... well, that just doesn't do it for me.

Less obvious choices:

What about Jack Dorsey for inventing Twitter? Twitter has changed social media and the way we get/deliver the news... perhaps even more than Facebook. You could have had a really fun story where you got dozens of stars and smart people to say in 140 characters how important Twitter has become.

Nate Silver would have been a fun way to talk about the election. If Time had been really smart, they could have done Nate and all the other folks bringing new metrics and math into other fields. Do Billy Beane/Bill James and the rest of the Moneyball revolutionaries in baseball. Do the secret Obama team that used all kinds of marketing data and computations to figure out how to generate turnout and where to generate it... they are the real ones who won the election. I am sure there are high mathematics folks doing amazing things with economics on Wall Street. A little research and I bet you could come up with at least 4 or 5 other people revolutionizing important parts of society by looking at metrics and math that had never been considered the realm of math in the past.

-Jason "Thanks for going with the dull and obvious, Time" Evans