It is often said there are three certainties in life: death, taxes and Time Magazine picking a hyper controversial figure for person of the year.
While that last one may not necessarily be true, the track record suggests some truth.
The most recent winner, Donald Trump, follows a recent string of winners that includes Mark Zuckerberg, the average protestor and former presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, who both won the award twice. Each of those people were selected because they had a profound effect on the world as we know it, and their selections were met with either controversy or disinterest.
Jonah Baker | Argonaut
However, there must be something better that a respected publication could be doing with their time and resources.
Time’s person of the year award should not exist if it will only create strife.
According to Time’s website, the award goes to the person that has had the most profound impact on the year, for better or for worse. It does not set specific guidelines like the Nobel Prize or similar field-specific honors, allowing for a wider range of options as the year winds down. Recognizing somebody as the most important person of the year accomplishes nothing except for an inflation of the chosen person’s ego and a storm of unessential media coverage.
Because of this wide approach to nomination and the lack of general meaning stemming from selection, the Time person of the year award should not exist. It adds nothing to society and only generates further controversy in a world that needs no more quarrelling.
Time first presented the designation in 1927, to pilot Charles Lindbergh after he became the first person to fly nonstop across the Atlantic. That was undeniably an important event that deserved special recognition, and many others deserved recognition for their impacts on humanity. But, selecting a person of the year every single year diminishes the importance of the award itself and attempts to equate people like Mahatma Gandhi and Jimmy Carter. In 1979, Ruhollah Khomeini was chosen based on his leadership in the Iranian Revolution and subsequent actions as Ayatollah, but the stateside backlash was so severe that Time began to avoid figures that were perceived as controversial in the United States to preserve revenue.
If the magazine leaves out millions of people and only generates media storms when it is revealed, then why should it exist?
Trump’s response to this year’s award is a great example of why the award should not exist. His selection generated a new storm on Twitter and cable news, taking up air time that could have been used to highlight important issues. The magazine issue served to highlight Trump’s activities through the last year, which anyone plugged in to social media or some news outlet would be well versed in.
A year-in-review style of issue would work great if the award highlighted a variety of people in depth, but so much homage to one person just doesn’t make any sense if it is only going to generate controversy that benefits close to no one.
If the award further distracts our president from his work along with the rest of the world then it should cease to exist.
As another alternative, Time could give an overview of award winners for recognitions that truly deserve to be recognized for advances in science, social justice or any other impact on the human race. In many different cases there have been individuals who deserve and need recognition more than whoever the sitting president happens to be, and highlighting those people would be a far more effective exercise than trying to pin one person down as the most important of all.
Our generation is often slandered for handing out too many participation trophies, but the Time Person of the Year has become just another way for the media to stir up controversy. The award should not exist if it will only distract and drive people apart.
Jonah Baker can be reached at a[email protected]or on Twitter @jonahpbaker