6 ms·

It seems that we're skirting the elephant in the room here - the POTY issue of Time is a huge deal for them. There's tremendous amounts of ad revenue associate

It seems that we're skirting the elephant in the room here - the POTY issue of Time is a huge deal for them. There's tremendous amounts of ad revenue associated with it and there's a lot of pressure on them to put together an issue people want to read. Yes, Assange made a distinct impact on the news and world events this year, but his face has been all over for this reason and that for weeks, and I think people are kind of sick of it. On top of that, he's hardly what one would call media friendly. Facebook may seem like old news to us but, IIRC, it was this year that they crossed the 500M user mark. That's a pretty big deal. It sucks up 700 billion man-minutes a month, and that's only getting more out of control. In hopes of avoiding a rant, let's just say this: if you had to write a major, year-defining (culturally, and for your publication) profile of someone, would you do it about the media figure with a hit movie "about" his life or the guy who has a tendency to walk out on interviews when he doesn't like a question?

danenania 16y ago
Your argument seems backwards. The reason Wikileaks and Assange have been plastered all over everything is that there is a huge demand for information about them. There is no doubt that Time could have created a lot more interest and controversy and by extension sold more issues (thereby pleasing advertisers more) if they had been honest and ethical and put Assange on their cover, but evidently they have other priorities.
- hugh3 16y ago
  Assange is a media darling now because he gave them a constant feed of semi-interesting stories in a slow time of the year. They love that. So I suspect you'll never see any proper coverage of the rape allegations against him.
- alexophile 16y ago
  Honest and ethical? This isn't the Nobel Prize. The criteria for POTY is set by Time and can be bent and justified however they see fit. In 2006, it was everybody. It has also been "The Endangered Earth," "Middle Americans," and "The Computer." They also opted to not include Hussein or Bin Laden. In 2001, it was Giuliani for his response to 9/11, and not anyone actually involved. Suffice it to say, they have a vested interest in avoiding the more contentious choices. They are becoming less relevant every year, and it seems likely that a lot of their readership still thinks facbook is cool.
  - danenania 16y ago
    Perhaps 'ethical' goes too far. It depends on what the real basis was for such a dumb choice. Clearly they can choose whoever and however they want, but given the 'well duh' nature of an Assange pick and the prevailing political climate, it seems reasonable to question whether there more is going on than journalistic whimsy.
  - loumf 16y ago
    Hitler was a past MOTY -- so they didn't always skirt controversy. 60+ years later, I know that -- 60 years from now, no one will know who got it in 2001.
bad_user 16y ago
Not saying you're wrong, but after reaching several hundreds of millions of users, reaching 500 million is not such a big milestone. Not a big deal. And btw, if they'll keep their growth at 4% per month, expect 1 billion users on ~ January 2012.
- dminor 16y ago
  I think 1/12th of the entirety of humanity using your service is something of a milestone.
  - stuhacking 16y ago
    Entirety of humanity? ~ 1/12th of the current population of the Earth, sure. However, (as of a 2009 estimate) there have been around 106 billion homo sapiens to have lived. Not to diminish the impact of your statistic with pedantry or anything. :) source: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=population+of+the+earth&a=*MC.the+earth-_*Country- http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=population+of+the+earth...
    - jerf 16y ago
      I don't think it's all that shocking that we don't measure the dead people in that metric. That's not pedantry, that's deliberately twisting words to make a true statement false and then chortling about it.
      - nkohari 16y ago
        Isn't that the point of a good proportion of comments on Hacker News? It seems to be.
        stuhacking 16y ago
        It seems I made a light hearted comment on Hacker News. What was I thinking!
      - 16y ago
cookiecaper 16y ago
I haven't known Assange to walk out. In fact, I'm listening to an interview between Assange and a BBC interviewer right now that basically constitutes hostile badgering and an utterly inappropriate line of questioning, including repetitive "How many women have you slept with?!?! Are you a sexual predator?!?!" questions, and Assange is taking it rather gracefully. I would have stopped the interview much earlier on if I had been asked the same questions in the same way. The interviewer interrupts Assange's answers and otherwise behaves himself badly, apart from the wholly inappropriate questioning. Interview here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9308000/9308216.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9308000/9308216....
- alexophile 16y ago
  ABC: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=087_1292630413 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=087_1292630413 CNN: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/23/julian-assange-walks-out-_n_772837.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/23/julian-assange-walk...
  - cookiecaper 16y ago
    Thanks for those links. I think he acted quite appropriately in both situations. He gave the CNN interviewer repeated warning and clearly did not want to walk, but felt obliged after she persisted, for the fourth or fifth time, in asking the same question. The ABC interviewer received no such warning, but one can hardly blame that; when an interviewer starts leading into prurient detail about alleged rape like "allegation that you forcibly spread her legs", Assange's reaction of an immediate walk is appropriate, even if the interviewer is oblivious to the impropriety of the question.
    - alexophile 16y ago
      I didn't ever mean to suggest that his actions were inappropriate - if you are the target of what appears to be a smear campaign, it makes sense to simply excuse yourself from this kind of confrontation. That being said, if you were charged with creating a portrait of the man, I can understand some hesitation. Which brings me to another point. Though Assange is clearly both newsworthy and influential, looking at the news leaves one with the sensation that his story is far from being played out. The narrative for Zuckerberg is pretty much resolved at this point. History will likely remember him more or less as he appeared in The Social Network, regardless of its accuracy. Assange's life and career, on the other hand, would necessarily leave off right before the exciting part, by virtue of it not having happened yet.
lucisferre 16y ago
Yeah I think the people hoping for Assange to get POTY were mistaking Time for a newsmagazine that mattered.
mcantor 16y ago
> Assange made a distinct impact on the news and world events this year, but his face has been all over for this reason and that for weeks... They made a movie about Zuckerberg! It played in theaters, on big screens! Dozens of them. Possibly hundreds! A movie!

danenania 16y ago

Your argument seems backwards. The reason Wikileaks and Assange have been plastered all over everything is that there is a huge demand for information about them. There is no doubt that Time could have created a lot more interest and controversy and by extension sold more issues (thereby pleasing advertisers more) if they had been honest and ethical and put Assange on their cover, but evidently they have other priorities.

hugh3 16y ago
Assange is a media darling now because he gave them a constant feed of semi-interesting stories in a slow time of the year. They love that. So I suspect you'll never see any proper coverage of the rape allegations against him.
alexophile 16y ago
Honest and ethical? This isn't the Nobel Prize. The criteria for POTY is set by Time and can be bent and justified however they see fit. In 2006, it was everybody. It has also been "The Endangered Earth," "Middle Americans," and "The Computer." They also opted to not include Hussein or Bin Laden. In 2001, it was Giuliani for his response to 9/11, and not anyone actually involved. Suffice it to say, they have a vested interest in avoiding the more contentious choices. They are becoming less relevant every year, and it seems likely that a lot of their readership still thinks facbook is cool.
- danenania 16y ago
  Perhaps 'ethical' goes too far. It depends on what the real basis was for such a dumb choice. Clearly they can choose whoever and however they want, but given the 'well duh' nature of an Assange pick and the prevailing political climate, it seems reasonable to question whether there more is going on than journalistic whimsy.
- loumf 16y ago
  Hitler was a past MOTY -- so they didn't always skirt controversy. 60+ years later, I know that -- 60 years from now, no one will know who got it in 2001.

bad_user 16y ago

Not saying you're wrong, but after reaching several hundreds of millions of users, reaching 500 million is not such a big milestone. Not a big deal. And btw, if they'll keep their growth at 4% per month, expect 1 billion users on ~ January 2012.

dminor 16y ago
I think 1/12th of the entirety of humanity using your service is something of a milestone.
- stuhacking 16y ago
  Entirety of humanity? ~ 1/12th of the current population of the Earth, sure. However, (as of a 2009 estimate) there have been around 106 billion homo sapiens to have lived. Not to diminish the impact of your statistic with pedantry or anything. :) source: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=population+of+the+earth&a=*MC.the+earth-_*Country- http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=population+of+the+earth...
  - jerf 16y ago
    I don't think it's all that shocking that we don't measure the dead people in that metric. That's not pedantry, that's deliberately twisting words to make a true statement false and then chortling about it.
    - nkohari 16y ago
      Isn't that the point of a good proportion of comments on Hacker News? It seems to be.
      - stuhacking 16y ago
        It seems I made a light hearted comment on Hacker News. What was I thinking!
    - 16y ago

cookiecaper 16y ago

I haven't known Assange to walk out. In fact, I'm listening to an interview between Assange and a BBC interviewer right now that basically constitutes hostile badgering and an utterly inappropriate line of questioning, including repetitive "How many women have you slept with?!?! Are you a sexual predator?!?!" questions, and Assange is taking it rather gracefully. I would have stopped the interview much earlier on if I had been asked the same questions in the same way. The interviewer interrupts Assange's answers and otherwise behaves himself badly, apart from the wholly inappropriate questioning. Interview here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9308000/9308216.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9308000/9308216....

alexophile 16y ago
ABC: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=087_1292630413 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=087_1292630413 CNN: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/23/julian-assange-walks-out-_n_772837.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/23/julian-assange-walk...
- cookiecaper 16y ago
  Thanks for those links. I think he acted quite appropriately in both situations. He gave the CNN interviewer repeated warning and clearly did not want to walk, but felt obliged after she persisted, for the fourth or fifth time, in asking the same question. The ABC interviewer received no such warning, but one can hardly blame that; when an interviewer starts leading into prurient detail about alleged rape like "allegation that you forcibly spread her legs", Assange's reaction of an immediate walk is appropriate, even if the interviewer is oblivious to the impropriety of the question.
  - alexophile 16y ago
    I didn't ever mean to suggest that his actions were inappropriate - if you are the target of what appears to be a smear campaign, it makes sense to simply excuse yourself from this kind of confrontation. That being said, if you were charged with creating a portrait of the man, I can understand some hesitation. Which brings me to another point. Though Assange is clearly both newsworthy and influential, looking at the news leaves one with the sensation that his story is far from being played out. The narrative for Zuckerberg is pretty much resolved at this point. History will likely remember him more or less as he appeared in The Social Network, regardless of its accuracy. Assange's life and career, on the other hand, would necessarily leave off right before the exciting part, by virtue of it not having happened yet.

lucisferre 16y ago

Yeah I think the people hoping for Assange to get POTY were mistaking Time for a newsmagazine that mattered.

mcantor 16y ago

> Assange made a distinct impact on the news and world events this year, but his face has been all over for this reason and that for weeks... They made a movie about Zuckerberg! It played in theaters, on big screens! Dozens of them. Possibly hundreds! A movie!