“Person of the Year”

This is wrong for sooo many reasons

by Patrick J. Shanahan
01/01/04

Let’s start at the beginning. I thoroughly dislike the very concept of “Man of the Year” (which, of course, morphed in entirely predictable PC ways). It smacks of the horrible “awards show culture” that we live within, in which we all pat each other on the back and tell each other how wonderful we are. Indeed, it was one of the first “award” rituals. The whole idea of being able to single out an individual as having been the most newsworthy of the year is nonsensical and trivial and irrelevant. It is also by definition prone to editorial bias. Last year, for example, Time awarded its “Chicks of the Year,” oops, I mean “Person of the Year” to “the whistleblowers” - three women who were lauded for being tattletales, and who ultimately had zero or close to zero permanent impact on anything. But they were a politically correct and safe choice.

As bad as it is to have a clear “person of the year,” it gets much worse when the concept of “person” itself becomes a casualty. One thinks of the year that earth was awarded Planet of the Year status. What possible difference could that have made about anything? None.

The entire exercise appears to have become a way for Time editors to “make a statement” under the cover of journalism.

So what to make of the selection this year of “The American Soldier”? Well, it appears at once to be clever, stupid and rude.

The cleverness of it is that it is the classic “support our troops” maneuver, which allows the editors of Time to completely sidestep a direct opinion on what they actually think of the War in Iraq, and gives them a politically salable way to avoid naming George W. Bush. All they need to do is praise the troops and imply bad things about the Administration, and they have made an “anti-war” statement without appearing at all unpatriotic. Very clever. I can almost see the Time editorial meeting where this was discussed. “How can we not name Bush? He has personally driven every major story of the year, like it or not.” “I don’t know,” pipes up Jim Kelly, “maybe we can name the American Soldier person of the year. That way we can support the war and recognize its importance, but without giving Bush any credit or publicity. Indeed, if we play our cards right, we can slam him at the same time”. Here is how that came out as reported by the Minneapolis Star Tribune:

The troops were singled out as the top newsmakers of the year because "the very messy aftermath of the war made it clear that the mission had changed, that the mission had not been completed and that this would be a story that would be with us for months, if not years, to come,” Time managing editor Jim Kelly said.

It is difficult to determine if this paragraph’s internal contradictions outweigh its passive aggressive anti-Bush stand, or vice versa. How does any of what he said argue for making “The American Soldier” the person of the year? Even taking his words at face value, even if the mission has changed, gotten uglier, and will be with us for years, who made that happen? Not the troops. They’re just doing their jobs. It is policy driving this as a story, policy made and executed by the Bush Administration. The “very messy aftermath” wisecrack shows what Time’s editors actually think. By defying logic to select all soldiers as “Person of the Year” they can cleverly avoid all this mess while embracing the import of the war.

So, yes, the choice was clever. But too clever by half, as the English would say.

It was also stupid. The first and foremost stupidity was that “The American Soldier” is not a person. It is hundreds of thousands of person. “Ahhh, but it is meant to be symbolic,” reassures the Time-o-phile. Then call it Symbol of the Year! (Which would sound stupid in its own way, but not as stupid as Person of the Year in this context.) To have One “person,” illustrated by three “persons” on the cover, representing all American soldiers everywhere, is implied theology run amok in a sea of ignorance. Symbolic trinities do not make news. People do. I would rather have seen Jessica Lynch named Women of the Year than her anonymous and amorphous peers. At least she was a real person who did real things.

And the oh-so-politically correct gender balance represented by the cover is remarkably irritating. This treating of female members of the armed forces as “soldiers” is just plain wrong as well as being stupid. They are not soldiers. They are supply clerks and cooks and truck drivers and secretaries, and the occasional MP. And they sometimes get lost and end up in harm’s way. And sometimes they show coolness and bravery in tough circumstances. But they are no more “soldiers” than I am. Actually, according to Time’s logic I was a “sailor”. I spent four years in the U.S. Navy back in the early 80s. The fact that I spent those years at a land-locked Boot Camp playing pool, drinking beer and teaching recruits to read doesn’t matter. I was a “sailor” nonetheless. Where was my recognition for the vital and newsworthy role I played in the Grenada operation?

The rudeness of Time’s selection is contained in the stunning editorial oversight in naming the Soldier as person of the Year. This one little act excluded Marines, Airmen and Sailors. Soldiers exist only in the Army. If you think Marines are soldiers, I dare you to walk up to one and call him “Soldier” and see what it gets you. It is clear that this exclusion was not intentional, but simply a result of ignorance. The importance of this oversight is that it proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the chattering classes have no clue about things military. I do not know what percentage of reporters and editors have direct military experience, but I am willing to bet that it is less than 1%. The journalism gravy train today runs straight from journalism schools to daily newspapers. There are no stops along the way in the real world, especially not in the military.

And I suppose it is difficult to come up with a better term without excluding some more politically correct groups. “America’s Fighting Men” wouldn’t do at all, for obvious reasons. And, as we discussed above, “America’s Fighting Men and Women” is not quite accurate, besides being too long for a cover title. I suppose they could have gone with “America’s Military Persons,” but that wouldn’t have been terribly sexy. So I suppose they did the best the could.

I am certain that most Americans will pass by the Time cover in the grocery store checkout lane and say, “How nice, they’re recognizing the troops.” Were that it were so. What they are doing is using the troops as convenient cover behind which to mask their own antipathies, biases and ignorance.

I know, you now, and the editors at Time know who is the man of the year. It is George W. Bush. Like what he has done or hate what he has done, but there can be no doubt that he has far and away been the major news driver in 2003. To say otherwise is cowardly and foolish.