Putin Announced as Time Magazine’s "Man of the Year"
Perhaps not-so-surprising announcement regarding Time Magazine naming Vladimir Putin as their “Man of the Year” for 2007. Reuters has the story of one of the more negative sounding pronouncements of “Man of the Year” in recent memory.
Russian President Vladimir Putin was named Time magazine’s “Person of the Year” for 2007 on Wednesday for bringing his country “roaring back to the table of world power.”
“He’s not a good guy, but he’s done extraordinary things,” said Time managing editor Richard Stengel, who announced Putin’s selection on NBC’s “Today Show.”
“He’s a new tsar of Russia and he’s dangerous in the sense that he doesn’t care about civil liberties; he doesn’t care about free speech; he cares about stability. But stability is what Russia needed and that’s why Russians adore him.”
Not a good guy? What, like he beats up old ladies and kicks dogs? I find the statement that he “doesn’t care about civil liberties” a bit odd also – I think Putin’s perspective is likely quite different, more of a first-things first approach. As much as our press would like to hand-wring about it, I think most Russians aren’t feeling their civil liberties being squashed any more than Americans do.
Personally, these aren’t the items or policies for which I would first criticize Putin. Then again, I also think that he gets too much credit for an economic recovery that actually started at the end of Boris Yeltsin’s time.
There is always something to be said for being in the right place at the right time. Putin deserves the most credit for simply having clear ideas on asserting Russia’s influence on the international stage, now that the nation has resurgent economic prowess.
To commemerate the occasion, I’m sharing the following Putin cut-out figure. Now you too can have a little Putin, Man of the Year, watching over your desk!
When completed, the figure will look like this:
Variations on the theme can be found here.
Save to del.icio.us
Online Pharmacy, Cheapest medication | Multiple domain web hosting
December 19, 2007 at 4:07 pm
Over the years, Time Magazine has had a relatively consistent policy with that annual title. Offhand, Stalin got it at least twice. If I’m not mistaken, Khomeni received it once.
Putin wouldn’t be wrong to issue a diplomatically frank shove it to Time.
As for the mentioned comments from Time, it’s part of the self censorship route. Much like how Columbia University’s president recently made it a point to undiplomatically bash the Iranian president in an effort win over those protesting the latter’s on campus appearance via invitation.
December 19, 2007 at 4:43 pm
Mike – when you say “self-censorship” you imply that the writers know better, have more complete knowledge or understanding, but bite their tongue and write something more palatable or something that would be accepted.
I don’t think that is the case. I believe these reporters, authors, and editors pretty much believe what they are writing.
As I have commented to you earlier, to my mind, such reporting is more about laziness in research and regurgitating prior reporting and ideas, rather than “self-censorship”.
December 19, 2007 at 5:02 pm
Wally:
And as I have responded to you with clear and numerous examples, this doesn’t always seem to be the case. It stands to reason that there would be more balanced commentary which isn’t the case on some topics. Part of that has to do with the unwritten understanding of what is the more preferred slant. Among others, long time NYT reporter David Binder shares my view.
I plan on having this point more formally stated in the not so distant future.
December 19, 2007 at 6:34 pm
The examples you provide are numerous, to be sure. I’m not buying “clear”.
Essentially, you would have to demonstrate something that isn’t demonstratable – that the authors know better than what they are writing, that in the process of writing they take well-crafted, articulate thoughts and turn it into drivel.
I get the feeling you really are itching to debate this, but I’m really not interested in reading reporters minds from afar, or implying that I have this ability.
What I can judge is the repetitive nature of certain words and phrases, which screams lazy journalism and writing.
December 19, 2007 at 8:33 pm
“Over the years, Time Magazine has had a relatively consistent policy with that annual title. Offhand, Stalin got it at least twice.”
And at least one of those Man of the Year articles was extremely favorable to Stalin. It was not an attack on Stalin at all.
Here, read it yourself:
http://www.time.com/time/subscriber/personoftheyear/archive/stories/1942.html
Man of the Year, 1942
Joseph Stalin: Die, But Do Not Retreat
Time Magazine
The year 1942 was a year of blood and strength. The man whose name means steel in Russian, whose few words of English include the American expression ‘tough guy’ was the man of 1942. Only Joseph Stalin fully knew how close Russia stood to defeat in 1942, and only Joseph Stalin fully knew how he brought Russia through.
But the whole world knew what the alternative would have been. The man who knew it best of all was Adolf Hitler, who found his past accomplishments turning into dust.
Had German legions swept past steel-stubborn Stalingrad and liquidated Russia’s power of attack, Hitler would have been not only man of the year, but he would have been undisputed master of Europe, looking for other continents to conquer. He could have diverted at least 250 victorious divisions to new conquests in Asia and Africa. But Joseph Stalin stopped him. Stalin had done it before–in 1941–when he started with all of Russia intact. But Stalin’s achievement of 1942 was far greater. All that Hitler could give he took–for the second time.
(snip)
The trek of world dignitaries to Moscow in 1942 brought Stalin out of his inscrutable shell, revealed a pleasant host and an expert at playing his cards in international affairs. At banquets for such men as Winston Churchill, W. Averill Harriman and Wendell Willkie, Host Stalin drank his vodka straight, talked the same way. He sent Foreign Minister Viacheslav Molotov to London and Washington to promote the second front and jack up laggard shipments of war materiel. In two letters to Henry Cassidy of the A.P., Stalin shrewdly used the world’s headlines to state the Russian case for more aid.
(snip)
The Past. The Revolution that was begun in 1917 by a handful of leather-coated working men and pallid intellectuals waving the red flag, by 1942 had congealed into a party government that has remained in power longer than any other major party in the world. It began under the leadership of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, on Marxist principles of a moneyless economy which challenged the right to accumulate wealth by private initiative.
The world reviled and caricatured the early Bolsheviks as bush-whiskered anarchists with a bomb in each hand. But Lenin, faced with hard facts and a war-beaten, superstitious, illiterate people, compromised with Marxism. Stalin, succeeding him, compromised still further, concentrated on building socialism in one state. Retained through the years of Russia’s great upheaval was the basic conception that the ownership and operation of the means of production must be kept in the hands of the state.
Within Russia’s immense disorderliness, Stalin faced the fundamental problems of providing enough food for the people and improving their lot, through 20th-Century industrial methods. He collectivized the farms and he built Russia into one of the four great industrial powers on earth. How well he succeeded was evident in Russia’s world-surprising strength in World War II. Stalin’s methods were tough, but they paid off.
The Present. The U.S., of all nations, should have been the first to understand Russia. Ignorance of Russia and suspicion of Stalin were two things that prevented it. Old prejudices and the antics of U.S. communists dangling at the end of the Party line were others. As Allies fighting the common enemy, the Russians have fought the best fight so far. As post-war collaborators, they hold many of the keys to a successful peace.
The two peoples who talk the most and scheme the biggest schemes are the Americans and the Russians. Both can be sentimental one moment, blazingly angry the next. Both spend their money freely for goods and pleasures, drink too much, argue interminably. Both are builders. The U.S. built mills and factories and tamed the land across a continent 3,000 miles wide. Russia tried to catch up by doing the same thing through a planned programme that post-pioneer Americans would not have suffered. The rights as individuals that U.S. citizens have, the Russians want and believe they eventually will receive. Some of the discipline that the Russians have, the U.S. may need before the end of World War II.
The Future. In his 25th-anniversary speech Stalin emphasized that the most important event in foreign affairs, both for war and peace, was Allied collaboration. ‘We have the facts and events,’ he said, ‘pointing to a progressive rapprochement among the members of the Anglo-Soviet-American coalition and their uniting in a single fighting alliance.’ This was a frank approach to the post-war world, as realistically sensible as Stalin’s expressed ideas on dealings with Germany. ‘Our aim,’ he said, ‘is not to destroy all armed force in Germany, because any intelligent man will understand that this is as impossible in the case of Germany as in the case of Russia. It would be unreasonable on the part of the victor to do so. To destroy Hitler’s army is possible and necessary.’
What other war aims Stalin has are not officially known, but there are reports in high circles that he wants no new territories except at points needed to make Russia impregnable against invasion. There is also a story in high places that, in keeping with the ‘tough-guy’ tradition, credits Stalin with one other desire: permission from his allies to raze Berlin, as a lesson in psychology to the Germans and as a burnt offering to his own heroic people.
December 19, 2007 at 10:52 pm
Wally:
Pardon whatever is off in this shorthand as I’m in a bit of a crunch time wise.
The examples of what I’m saying are numerous enough to warrant the stated contention of censorship, encouraged by an understanding of how management prefers a given news issue to be covered. Your described lazy aspects of the involved journalist often show a related political slant. Call it what you want, there’s censorship in English langauge mass media. At times the left leaning media watch dog group http://www.fair.org and its right wing counterpart http://www.aim.org find themselves in agreement on such matter. The greatest censorship is the one not discussed.
Look how Stalin was covered during WW II, the “Uncle Joe” period. Milosevic was given a longer string upon his going along with the 1995 Dayton Accord. This at a time when Serbs were protesting his rule. Media wise, he became more a bad guy again after resorting back to a “nationalist” route, as in advocating Serbia’s interests. I choose not to make this post an extended essay via providing many other examples.
On another point you raise, Yeltsin didn’t show the fortitude to limit the role of oligarchs in government. Khodorkovsky was on the verge of selling Yukos to a foreign business interest, with the money return going to his planned political life. The NYT had a detailed accounting of this. An example of good journalism. A point which doesn’t take away from what I’ve communicated. One has to look at the overall situation. Good journalism can be found in Russian mass media as well.