undefined | Better HN

0 pointspfarrell12y ago0 comments

"Though we spent hours debating the pros and cons of naming Osama bin Laden, it ultimately became easy to dismiss him," said managing editor Jim Kelly. "He is not a larger-than-life figure with broad historical sweep ... he is smaller than life, a garden-variety terrorist whose evil plan succeeded beyond his highest hopes."

They chose Giuliani instead.

http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/12/23/giuliani.time/

0 comments

MichaelGG12y ago

"Smaller than life?" What does that mean? For worse, those attacks have had lasting implications everywhere. Sounds like they realised they'd be slammed really hard if they stuck to accuracy so they backed down with some handy-wavy nonsense about being brave.

If their bravery had caused a proper response, similar to how Norway responded to that mass-shooting, then it'd be worthwhile to note. But despite their bravery, that "garden-variety terrorist" has succeeded in scaring people into allowing their government to expand powers.

And the dismissal that it doesn't matter because he didn't think it'd work out - that's just idiotic. Do we disqualify scientists from the other Nobel prizes because "they really didn't think this experiment would discover anything"?

snowwrestler12y ago

It means they were writing for their U.S. audience at the time, who wanted to see Bin Laden put down and diminished.

Hitler was Time's Man of the Year in 1938, based on his foreign policy maneuvering at that time. Despite the much greater enormity and historical impact of the Holocaust, he wasn't put there in 1945 or any time since.

Time editors are not going to expose themselves to that level of social anger. No matter how many times they say "Man of the Year" is not a reward, it still has that connotation in a lot of people's minds.

shitgoose12y ago

Article was written in 2001, at which point it was hard to foresee the lasting implications.

Also, he didn't scare people. US government did by waiving the terrorism banner for all these years.

crystaln12y ago

So, in your opinion, it was an idiotic injustice that Osama bin Laden was robbed of being Time's Man of the Year.

MichaelGG12y ago

I don't think it's an "injustice" and I don't think "robbed" is the right word either. I'm unaware of anyone I know that really cares what some magazine writes.

I'm just pointing out their terrible use of rhetoric and lack of logic.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

MichaelGG12y ago

snowwrestler12y ago

It means they were writing for their U.S. audience at the time, who wanted to see Bin Laden put down and diminished.

shitgoose12y ago

Article was written in 2001, at which point it was hard to foresee the lasting implications.

Also, he didn't scare people. US government did by waiving the terrorism banner for all these years.

crystaln12y ago

So, in your opinion, it was an idiotic injustice that Osama bin Laden was robbed of being Time's Man of the Year.

MichaelGG12y ago

I don't think it's an "injustice" and I don't think "robbed" is the right word either. I'm unaware of anyone I know that really cares what some magazine writes.

I'm just pointing out their terrible use of rhetoric and lack of logic.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse