Man of the Year?

From the Blue Lemur, Time magazine responds with a form letter to the furor over George Bush being chosen Time's Man of the Year [emphasis mine]:

Dear Reader:

We regret your disappointment over the selection of President Bush as TIME’s Person of the Year.

But perhaps we should remind you of the traditional standard by which the editors make their annual choice. The Person of the Year is not an award or a tribute. The question at the center of the selection process is, Who or what, for better or worse, has affected the way we live today? The answer to that question could be a force for good (for example, Winston Churchill, Man of the Year, 1940; Dwight Eisenhower, 1944) or for evil (Adolf Hitler, Man of the Year, 1939; Ayatullah Khomeini, 1979).

And to the latter, President George W. Bush must be added for 2004 – there is no one else whose agenda and actions in the past year had such universal impact. As managing editor Jim Kelly noted in his Letter From the Editor, Bush has had his highs and lows over the past four years, but in the end he prevailed in the 2004 election by “persuading a majority of voters this time around that he deserved to be in the White House for another four years.”

Thank you for writing. We appreciated having the opportunity to respond to your concerns.

Best wishes.

TIME Letters

Talk about a backhanded compliment. Thanks for clarifying that, Time.


+Save/Share | |