Discussion in 'The Pub' started by D. Stewart, Dec 6, 2017.
He just does. Please don't confuse the matter.
They should do a reality show together, called Every Rose Has It's Lauer. I think TBS would eat that up, but with the level of nudity I require to keep coming back each week, Showtime or Cinemax is probably a better fit. Or C-Span.
Lesser mortals? Let me quote the words from a Time article on this:
So basically, you are angry they didn't choose you?
You're picking up what I'm laying down.
That explains their position, no doubt. But your comment suggested that their motive in creating a title that was counterintuitive in the case of 'villains' was make people think. What did you mean by that?
Does it not make one think that an evil person is the news maker of the year? How the course of history, even in modern times, is so often ruled by negative influences? That this honourific is often applicable to a leader that degrades civilization? What does this say about our future as a race, etc., etc., etc.
It's not really that opaque, is it?
I'm out.....I think I've sufficiently explained my position well enough that all of the other posters in this thread should understand it......those who disagree will not have their positions changed by any more explanation on my part......good discussion, though....
You really haven't. Not as far as your cagey "there are no coincidences" business is concerned, in any event.
Nope. Does anyone even read Time magazine these days?
I'll be honest, I'm still not sure what your position is. Is it Matt Lauer should get his job back, the media should stop reporting the events and allegations surrounding his termination, and there should be a jury impaneled before NBC can decide to term him? That's what I think you're saying.
It makes wonder what criteria they employ. Based on my observations I’d remark that Time seeks candidates who leave the most lasting impression on folks, without any judgement on the actual details. That would explain a lot.
... to reiterate...
But that's the irony I suggested, which you said was not what you meant.
But, whatever ... there's a sourness and antagonism about this exchange of ours that seems fairly typical. Maybe it's you, maybe it's me, or maybe it's a mixture of the two. Whichever it is, we seem locked in a pattern of opposition, which seems to make the topic and the enjoyment of discussion less important than petty point-scoring.
That's really not what you suggested. Your initial post I replied to talked about how the title was not apropos due to what you see as a positive connotation of the term. I suggested this was a mechanism to make people think about what makes for a person of the year. You then wanted to know if I felt people would not have known Hitler was evil and I dismissed that suggestion. I can quote them if needed or you can just go back and read them.
You haven't explained anything sufficiently. People here are still confused at your vague statements and have asked you to clarify. I posed a simple question to help you clarify your position, as did EP. Feel free to answer.
With Lauer, NBC knew they had a grave problem but they lacked the critical, perfectly documented case to break the inertia and get the process rolling. Many women were so terrified, others were terrified for them, that they really were unable to take the action they wanted to. And, I'm sure executives kinda wished the whole thing could somehow go away, since sponsors seemed to love Lauer. Once they had sufficient goods, they launched an undertaking I suspect they had long planned, perhaps even before Guthrie started there. This falls under the category of, if you're gonna shoot at the king, you better take him out in one shot - you won't get a do over.
I know this seems odd, that everyone seems gregarious and everybody is buddy pal with Matt Lauer one day, and 24-48 hours later nobody will return his phone calls. But this seems to be the very way this works, in business.
There are actions, have been actions against abusers for quite some time, and the some of ones with no friends and no deep pockets have long since been kicked to the curb, just forgotten human debris.The Media often have no time to broadcast this and the audience has limited interest in it.
Frankly I think that some of the "Accused with limited funds" cases were in the nature of Test Cases as we advocates honed our approach for how we would take on the people who could really fight back - the people that could ruin the lawyer's life before he could ruin theirs.
Because getting a huge monetary judgment against some poor so and so does not pay the rent, you can pretty much expect a concentration of resources against people with wealthy friends and deep pockets. I'm not sure what you can do about it. There's something poetic in a way, that for once the wealthiest guy may feel the tip of the spear before Joe Six Pack does.
Yes, MOST "of the year" recognitions have positive connotations, but Time has made it clear, and I was reinforcing Eric's post, the fact that person of the year for their magazine does not always go to the most positive influence. If you have a beef with the nomenclature, I suggest you take it up with Time. Others who have been considered as a person of the year were: Joseph Stalin, Nikita Kruschchev, Ayatullah Khomeini, and Osama Bin Laden.
It is apparent that Time typically leans towards a more positive influence, but negative influences are always included in every single Time "of the year" issue. It's a way of raising awareness, and to me, seems to be a pretty balanced way of looking at the good and bad that may have occurred in a particular year.