Full Version: Time Person of the Year: Katrina?
According to CNN, Time Magazine is considering naming Hurricane Katrina their "Person of the Year".
Should Hurricane Katrina be awarded Time Magazine's Person of the Year? If yes, why? If no, who would you nominate and why?
QUOTE
NEW YORK (AP) -- Time magazine's 2005 Person of the Year may not be a person after all. A panel of notables has made a strong case for awarding the distinction this year to Hurricane Katrina.
NBC anchor Brian Williams included Katrina in his larger nomination of Mother Nature, which he picked because of a host of environmental stories this year, from the tsunami to earthquakes in Pakistan. He said the hurricane and its aftermath led to other issues.
"Katrina gets you to Iraq. It gets you to petroleum. It gets you to presidential politics," Williams said. "It has laid bare so many cracks and fissures in our system."
Williams was part of a six-member panel invited to make suggestions to the magazine about who or what it should choose as its Person of the Year.
NBC anchor Brian Williams included Katrina in his larger nomination of Mother Nature, which he picked because of a host of environmental stories this year, from the tsunami to earthquakes in Pakistan. He said the hurricane and its aftermath led to other issues.
"Katrina gets you to Iraq. It gets you to petroleum. It gets you to presidential politics," Williams said. "It has laid bare so many cracks and fissures in our system."
Williams was part of a six-member panel invited to make suggestions to the magazine about who or what it should choose as its Person of the Year.
Should Hurricane Katrina be awarded Time Magazine's Person of the Year? If yes, why? If no, who would you nominate and why?
Should Hurricane Katrina be awarded Time Magazine's Person of the Year? If yes, why? If no, who would you nominate and why?
No - Katrina never has had any kind of personhood, either real or poetic.
As the quote you cited hints, though, I think there might very well be a good case to be made for nominating Mother Nature. Certainly the last 12 months have been a salutary reminder that for all our social and technical sophistication, we're still pretty much at the mercy of the natural world.
As well as the more-than-usually powerfull hurricanes of the 2005 season, the Asian tsunami, and the Kashmiri earthquake, another nature-rooted threat that has become clear this year has been the possibility/likelihood of a global flu pandemic.
Couple that with the ID / creationism vs evolution argument (two competing explanations for how the natural world came into being), and Mother Nature, poetic representation though she may be, becomes a strong contender for the most important and influential figure of 2005.
I'd say the only other figures worth mentioning on the international stage would be the double-act of Rumsfeld and Rove, whose successes and failures have both driven most of the successes and failures of the USA (the ones not linked to Mother Nature, at least). This year, their failures may well have been more notable than their successes, and perhaps they should be given a pass this year, since most of the court cases that might prove or disprove their competence and/or corruption won't really get underway until next year.
So, if I had to pick one nominee, it would be Mother Nature.
No - Katrina never has had any kind of personhood, either real or poetic.
As the quote you cited hints, though, I think there might very well be a good case to be made for nominating Mother Nature. Certainly the last 12 months have been a salutary reminder that for all our social and technical sophistication, we're still pretty much at the mercy of the natural world.
As well as the more-than-usually powerfull hurricanes of the 2005 season, the Asian tsunami, and the Kashmiri earthquake, another nature-rooted threat that has become clear this year has been the possibility/likelihood of a global flu pandemic.
Couple that with the ID / creationism vs evolution argument (two competing explanations for how the natural world came into being), and Mother Nature, poetic representation though she may be, becomes a strong contender for the most important and influential figure of 2005.
I'd say the only other figures worth mentioning on the international stage would be the double-act of Rumsfeld and Rove, whose successes and failures have both driven most of the successes and failures of the USA (the ones not linked to Mother Nature, at least). This year, their failures may well have been more notable than their successes, and perhaps they should be given a pass this year, since most of the court cases that might prove or disprove their competence and/or corruption won't really get underway until next year.
So, if I had to pick one nominee, it would be Mother Nature.
Should Hurricane Katrina be awarded Time Magazine's Person of the Year? If yes, why? If no, who would you nominate and why?
Katrina is not a person. This is the classic example of mission creep or definition creep. Katrina is not a person.
Of course, Time has nominated ideas or objects before (Endangered Earth, the computer, the 25-and-under generation), so it is almost a sure bet that Katrina (or Mother Nature) will be the pick.
My nominations would be Rosa Parks or John Paul II.
Katrina is not a person. This is the classic example of mission creep or definition creep. Katrina is not a person.
Of course, Time has nominated ideas or objects before (Endangered Earth, the computer, the 25-and-under generation), so it is almost a sure bet that Katrina (or Mother Nature) will be the pick.
My nominations would be Rosa Parks or John Paul II.
Should Hurricane Katrina be awarded Time Magazine's Person of the Year? If yes, why? If no, who would you nominate and why? Unless the hurricane really was a person, I'd vote no. However, as this is Time's annual chance to shape the national conversation, they may see otherwise. And it's their magazine. I'd rather that they selected the Iraqi voter or al-Zarqawi or someone having a greater effect on world events, whether for good or evil. Even anonymous "french youths" would be a more compelling pick in my opinion.
Not that the media has an agenda or anything but "Katrina gets you to Iraq?"
What? I agree about the cracks and fissures in our system but Iraq and petroleum? That is a very tenuous connection most likely made by someone looking for a connection in the first place. Paraphrasing logophage - confirmation bias? The only ones connecting New Orleans to Iraq were the kookiest of anti-war protesters like Cindy Sheehan who demanded we get out of "occupied Iraq and occupied New Orleans" or those mistakenly reporting the whereabouts of the Louisiana National Guard.
QUOTE
NBC anchor Brian Williams included Katrina in his larger nomination of Mother Nature, which he picked because of a host of environmental stories this year, from the tsunami to earthquakes in Pakistan. He said the hurricane and its aftermath led to other issues.
"Katrina gets you to Iraq. It gets you to petroleum. It gets you to presidential politics," Williams said. "It has laid bare so many cracks and fissures in our system."
Williams was part of a six-member panel invited to make suggestions to the magazine about who or what it should choose as its Person of the Year.
"Katrina gets you to Iraq. It gets you to petroleum. It gets you to presidential politics," Williams said. "It has laid bare so many cracks and fissures in our system."
Williams was part of a six-member panel invited to make suggestions to the magazine about who or what it should choose as its Person of the Year.
Not that the media has an agenda or anything but "Katrina gets you to Iraq?"
What? I agree about the cracks and fissures in our system but Iraq and petroleum? That is a very tenuous connection most likely made by someone looking for a connection in the first place. Paraphrasing logophage - confirmation bias? The only ones connecting New Orleans to Iraq were the kookiest of anti-war protesters like Cindy Sheehan who demanded we get out of "occupied Iraq and occupied New Orleans" or those mistakenly reporting the whereabouts of the Louisiana National Guard.
QUOTE(carlitoswhey @ Nov 15 2005, 09:19 AM)
QUOTE
NBC anchor Brian Williams included Katrina in his larger nomination of Mother Nature, which he picked because of a host of environmental stories this year, from the tsunami to earthquakes in Pakistan. He said the hurricane and its aftermath led to other issues.
"Katrina gets you to Iraq. It gets you to petroleum. It gets you to presidential politics," Williams said. "It has laid bare so many cracks and fissures in our system."
Williams was part of a six-member panel invited to make suggestions to the magazine about who or what it should choose as its Person of the Year.
"Katrina gets you to Iraq. It gets you to petroleum. It gets you to presidential politics," Williams said. "It has laid bare so many cracks and fissures in our system."
Williams was part of a six-member panel invited to make suggestions to the magazine about who or what it should choose as its Person of the Year.
Not that the media has an agenda or anything but "Katrina gets you to Iraq?"
What? I agree about the cracks and fissures in our system but Iraq and petroleum? That is a very tenuous connection most likely made by someone looking for a connection in the first place. Paraphrasing logophage - confirmation bias? The only ones connecting New Orleans to Iraq were the kookiest of anti-war protesters like Cindy Sheehan who demanded we get out of "occupied Iraq and occupied New Orleans" or those mistakenly reporting the whereabouts of the Louisiana National Guard.
carlitoswhey, it's fine to address specific greivances with the data presented in the opening post, but you must also deal with the question for debate.
Should Hurricane Katrina be awarded Time Magazine's Person of the Year? If yes, why? If no, who would you nominate and why?
No. Katrina is not a person. Just because the weather service tacks a human name on a natural phenomenon, it doesn't make it a person.
Time should come up with an Event of the Year or something like that.
As for "Mother Nature", let's just not go there, because then that would lead to nominating "God" and that opens a whole 'nother can of worms.
Not that I can say much for Time's choices here.
No. Katrina is not a person. Just because the weather service tacks a human name on a natural phenomenon, it doesn't make it a person.
Time should come up with an Event of the Year or something like that.
As for "Mother Nature", let's just not go there, because then that would lead to nominating "God" and that opens a whole 'nother can of worms.
Not that I can say much for Time's choices here.
In general terms, my answer lines up with Julian's. While Katrina I don't think is a bad choice, I think Mother Nature (or our environment) would be a better choice. Bottom line, the weather and natural disasters have arguably impacted/influenced more people in the past 12 months than anything in recent memory. If nothing else, humankind should be humbled by these events and acknowledge the idea that we are indeed still residents of this place called Earth and not its owners.
Why doesn't TIME just make a seperate category like "Event of the Year"? That would make more sense than to make a hurricane a person.
QUOTE
Should Hurricane Katrina be awarded Time Magazine's Person of the Year? If yes, why? If no, who would you nominate and why?
I think leder brings up a good point. I do not see the name Katrina (talking about the specific hurricane) signed up for Social Security, filing taxes, as a slot on a birth certificate, in any phone book or subject to any laws both domestic and foreign. If Katrina did not start out a fetus in a human mother's womb and was given birth to by that mother, it is not a person and is void of any "person" of the year awards. Why would a hurricane be any more important than a table lamp? I think leder is correct in saying that we need an "event" of the year for Katrina.
John Paul II because of his years of service to the world and his contributions to peace in the society in which we now live.
Would we even be having this conversation if we didn't name hurricanes? How would we be talking about the Indonesian tsunami or the Pakistan earthquake if we named those events? Anthropomorphizing weather events just leads to this kind of irrational behavior. No, I don't think "Katrina" should be named Person of the Year. Though it hardly matters to me what the editors at TIME think, I would think they would want to single out the acts of people that helped change the world. Should we talk about the biggest, most cohesively metaphorical news story, or should we talk about actual people?
As for people, a few come to mind:
Jalal Talabani - For just being the first elected president in a country where our current purpose for having invaded is to bring the democratic process.
Condolezza Rice - For being the best representative of this country to the world that this current U.S. Administration could hope for. She is right now, almost single-handedly keeping the U.S.'s reputation afloat abroad.
Terry Schiavo - For being a lightning rod and symbol of several of the deepest divisions in American culture: end of life decisions, religion, government intrusion, family & generational values.
Ariel Sharon - For making the decision of dismantling Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory against his party's wishes.
Hu Jintao - For globetrotting his country into the global marketplace.
Pope Benedict XVI - For being a symbol of the continuity of the oldest institutional line in the world, which happens to be a religion and a state at the same time. Admittedly, he hasn't done much yet to affect world events, but like I said, he's a symbol who is also a person.
As for people, a few come to mind:
Jalal Talabani - For just being the first elected president in a country where our current purpose for having invaded is to bring the democratic process.
Condolezza Rice - For being the best representative of this country to the world that this current U.S. Administration could hope for. She is right now, almost single-handedly keeping the U.S.'s reputation afloat abroad.
Terry Schiavo - For being a lightning rod and symbol of several of the deepest divisions in American culture: end of life decisions, religion, government intrusion, family & generational values.
Ariel Sharon - For making the decision of dismantling Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory against his party's wishes.
Hu Jintao - For globetrotting his country into the global marketplace.
Pope Benedict XVI - For being a symbol of the continuity of the oldest institutional line in the world, which happens to be a religion and a state at the same time. Admittedly, he hasn't done much yet to affect world events, but like I said, he's a symbol who is also a person.
I think we should keep in mind that the Person or Thing of the Year needs to be whoever or whatever has had the most influence, for good or bad, on current events. No matter how much we might want to honor Rosa Parks, for example, I don't think we can honestly say that she had an enormous impact on the news of 2005. The same goes for most of the other names or things I have seen nominated here.
To be sure, 2005 is going to be more of a puzzle than 2004, when George W. Bush was the obvious choice. As a matter of fact, he seems like a reasonable choice for 2005 as well, as some have noted.
Link
(I might not put it quite that way, but I think something like "an administration in crisis" would be accurate.)
However, I think that we need to step back a little bit from national politics -- even from world politics -- and consider the vast impact that natural disasters have had this year.
Hurricane Katrina, which was certainly horrible, was not a catastrophe on the scale of the Indian Ocean tsunami or the Kashmir earthquake. For this reason, it would be foolish to name Katrina as the Thing of the Year -- it would trivialize the horrors that nations other than the United States have had to face. Instead, a broader recognition of these disasters should be acknowledged.
I would not name "Mother Nature" as the Thing of the Year, because that sounds too silly and cartoonish. Instead, I suggest that the Thing of the Year be called something like "The Dangerous Earth". (They can use the phrase "Planet of the Year" like they did back in 1988 for "The Endangered Earth." In fact, I think that "The Dangerous Earth" would make a nice balance with "The Endangered Earth.")
Other than that, the only other choice I can think of would have to be called "Religion of the Year" -- Islam, which has certainly had a vast impact on current events.
To be sure, 2005 is going to be more of a puzzle than 2004, when George W. Bush was the obvious choice. As a matter of fact, he seems like a reasonable choice for 2005 as well, as some have noted.
Link
QUOTE
President Bush could be considered for a second year in a row— although this time as “the incredible shrinking president” in light of the extent to which he has lost popular support and seen his initiatives thwarted in the year since his reelection.
(I might not put it quite that way, but I think something like "an administration in crisis" would be accurate.)
However, I think that we need to step back a little bit from national politics -- even from world politics -- and consider the vast impact that natural disasters have had this year.
Hurricane Katrina, which was certainly horrible, was not a catastrophe on the scale of the Indian Ocean tsunami or the Kashmir earthquake. For this reason, it would be foolish to name Katrina as the Thing of the Year -- it would trivialize the horrors that nations other than the United States have had to face. Instead, a broader recognition of these disasters should be acknowledged.
I would not name "Mother Nature" as the Thing of the Year, because that sounds too silly and cartoonish. Instead, I suggest that the Thing of the Year be called something like "The Dangerous Earth". (They can use the phrase "Planet of the Year" like they did back in 1988 for "The Endangered Earth." In fact, I think that "The Dangerous Earth" would make a nice balance with "The Endangered Earth.")
Other than that, the only other choice I can think of would have to be called "Religion of the Year" -- Islam, which has certainly had a vast impact on current events.
Should Hurricane Katrina be awarded Time Magazine's Person of the Year? If yes, why? If no, who would you nominate and why?
I get the drift about newsworthy situations. This isn't the first non-person nominated for person of the year. It therefore is a meaningless award, and news editors ought to know better. Change the name to Newsworthy Thingy of the Year already!
I don't know what I'd nominate. Maybe the awakening of the American public? Naw, too abstract. How about the Republican party? It sure has recieved its share of inches in the press, you know, if that's the metric. In any case, the award is misnamed. Any first year English student knows that, and I'm talking grade school level.
Well, I hope Katrina enjoys her award. Nobody else can.
I get the drift about newsworthy situations. This isn't the first non-person nominated for person of the year. It therefore is a meaningless award, and news editors ought to know better. Change the name to Newsworthy Thingy of the Year already!
I don't know what I'd nominate. Maybe the awakening of the American public? Naw, too abstract. How about the Republican party? It sure has recieved its share of inches in the press, you know, if that's the metric. In any case, the award is misnamed. Any first year English student knows that, and I'm talking grade school level.
Well, I hope Katrina enjoys her award. Nobody else can.
Should Hurricane Katrina be awarded Time Magazine's Person of the Year? If yes, why? If no, who would you nominate and why?
Actually I think that the earthquake in Pakistan would rate a little higher on the devastation scale. If we want to pick one person who embodies Katrina, we could always choose the "Beer Looter Dude"
Personally I think the selection, and the magazine, are passe. I look back at some of their selections (Arafat/Carter/Clinton) and can do little more than smirk. I don't know if it me or the magazine, but the more "mature" I get, the more the magazine seems to be just pushing it's agenda. Time will go the same way the newspapers are headed in short order, due in great part to editorial "attitudes" that they know better than us what is good for us. I similarly finally gave up on Scientific American after realizing they had adopted Henry Waxman as their poster child.
QUOTE(still @ Nov 16 2005, 12:28 AM)
Would we even be having this conversation if we didn't name hurricanes? How would we be talking about the Indonesian tsunami or the Pakistan earthquake if we named those events? Anthropomorphizing weather events just leads to this kind of irrational behavior.
Excellent point, still. Maybe the powers that be in seismography should start naming earthquakes, be they on land or at sea, so put the damaged caused in the proper perspective. Then again, the only way an earthquake, however devastating, is going to eclipse a hurricane making US landfall is by having its epicentre somewhere where its effects are felt in the continental USA (no disrespect to Hawaii).
QUOTE
Condolezza Rice - For being the best representative of this country to the world that this current U.S. Administration could hope for. She is right now, almost single-handedly keeping the U.S.'s reputation afloat abroad.
It's just an aside, but you can scratch the "almost".
QUOTE(Victoria Silverwolf @ Nov 16 2005, 04:19 AM)
I think we should keep in mind that the Person or Thing of the Year needs to be whoever or whatever has had the most influence, for good or bad, on current events. No matter how much we might want to honor Rosa Parks, for example, I don't think we can honestly say that she had an enormous impact on the news of 2005. The same goes for most of the other names or things I have seen nominated here.
Terrell Owens is the most obvious choice. For anyone following sports I have never seen so much press coverage for a single football player.
Yes, I jest.
Considering there were natural disasters far worse than Katrina, it’s difficult to make the case for a weather event to get the title “person of the year.” The Pope will likely get it, but which one? Does the person have to be alive? This might be a good year to name a scientist Person of the Year.
BTW: Last year was worse in terms of natural disaster deaths.
Here is the data for number of deaths caused by natural disasters since 1990
One statistic that is missing is deaths caused by cold weather. Cold weather kills more people every year on average compared to heat, but it's not listed in these stats.
One thing to bear in mind is that Time magazine hasn't always named a person to this award. Remember when the PC was Person of the Year?
Perhaps Time Magazine should rename the award, that really isn't the point of the debate.
I agree with Still's point about whether Katrina would have this significance if it were unnamed, like the tsunami or the earthquake. I think its yet another example where the larger forces are of greater significance than 1 event. I don't know whether you call it the environment or mother nature, but I don't think there's any doubt it was one of, if not, the most influencial actors in the world the past 12 months.
Perhaps Time Magazine should rename the award, that really isn't the point of the debate.
I agree with Still's point about whether Katrina would have this significance if it were unnamed, like the tsunami or the earthquake. I think its yet another example where the larger forces are of greater significance than 1 event. I don't know whether you call it the environment or mother nature, but I don't think there's any doubt it was one of, if not, the most influencial actors in the world the past 12 months.
I am against Hurricane Katrina getting 'Person of the Year' for a variety of reasons.
For one, a natural phenomena is not a person. I can (sort of) understand giving the PC an award-- it was a created object that drastically changed the world. I can understand other objects that were great-- but I cannot understand a hurricane or earthquake being named.
Theoretically, Time would want to name something new or influential, and hurricanes and earthquakes have been happening since the beginning of time. Simply because the United States was not prepared for a hurricane does not mean it should get the award. Especially since, as has been stated, it would simply detract and lessen the impacts of other more severe natural disasters, like the tsunami and earthquake.
I would also argue that the hurricane has not been the most influential thing in the past year. Mother Nature would make more sense than a single hurricane, but I still would not agree to having Mother Nature as the winner since she's been around longer than any of the rest of us.
I'm thinking Harriet Miers should be it...
Sorry, I couldn't resist. No, I really don't know who Time should name. (I think it'll end up being Katrina, but ah well) I can't necessarily think of a specific person who has had a tremendous impact on the world. It'd be nice if Condolezza Rice got it, but that's not going to happen. It's just hard to say really.
For one, a natural phenomena is not a person. I can (sort of) understand giving the PC an award-- it was a created object that drastically changed the world. I can understand other objects that were great-- but I cannot understand a hurricane or earthquake being named.
Theoretically, Time would want to name something new or influential, and hurricanes and earthquakes have been happening since the beginning of time. Simply because the United States was not prepared for a hurricane does not mean it should get the award. Especially since, as has been stated, it would simply detract and lessen the impacts of other more severe natural disasters, like the tsunami and earthquake.
I would also argue that the hurricane has not been the most influential thing in the past year. Mother Nature would make more sense than a single hurricane, but I still would not agree to having Mother Nature as the winner since she's been around longer than any of the rest of us.
I'm thinking Harriet Miers should be it...
Sorry, I couldn't resist. No, I really don't know who Time should name. (I think it'll end up being Katrina, but ah well) I can't necessarily think of a specific person who has had a tremendous impact on the world. It'd be nice if Condolezza Rice got it, but that's not going to happen. It's just hard to say really.
QUOTE
Should Hurricane Katrina be awarded Time Magazine's Person of the Year? If yes, why? If no, who would you nominate and why?
It wouldn't surprise me if the hurricane won, I believe they might do it in order to push magazines.
I have two reasons for believing this award would be inapropriate. First and most obviously, a weather event is not a person. Second, but just as important, is that many people have helped citizens of Louisiana overcome anything that the hurricane threw. It was amazing to see people taking families they didn't know into their own homes, or gassed up their truck and brought food, water, and supplies. If anybody, generous citizens and people who went out of their way to provide their own time or homes, ought to be Time's person of the year.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.