Chavez wins Time's Person of the Year - Time ignores the result.

[shance]

Chavez wins "Person of the Year" poll ... Time magazine ignores result


"A few days ago, Time Magazine announced the winner of its annual "Person of the Year" award. Many supporters of the Bolivarian Revolution will be disappointed to hear that Hugo Chavez did not make it despite the fact that he won Time's online poll by a wide margin and got 35% of the votes.

This is significant, as Chavez had been the number 1 in the poll for several weeks and was clearly set to win the award.

Instead, it seems we all have won the award! Indeed, the 2006 Person of the Year is "you" and much is made of the Web 2.0 and one of its foremost brainchildren, the online video service YouTube.


The link to their online poll is simply not there any more, although after some Google searching we traced it back to www.time.com/time/personoftheyear/2006/walkup/, where you can see the results for yourself."

"You don't have to be a believer in conspiracy theories to assume that clearly the Time Magazine editorial board was not happy with the choice of its readers! Surely the so-called "liberal" magazine did not like the result of its own poll and decided to push its own candidate, "the YouTube guys".


"In the whole magazine there are many lauding words for this "digital democracy" but ironically Time decided to ignore its own "digital democracy" and hide the fact that 35% voted for Hugo Chavez and 21% for the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

It is true that an online poll is not a very scientific tool but surely it would have been worth to at least point out who won the Time poll in the first place?

Maybe because they did not want the winner to be a popular President of a country where "power to the people" is not just an empty phrase but is being implemented in practice in the real world, and who has been democratically elected time and time again?"

http://www.karmalised.com/archives/001779.html

: : : : :

[Fridays Child]

1. k/r

[SoCalDem]

2. They don't choose based on that silly poll anyway. It's just

an advertising ploy to get people to go to the website and vote :)

[shance]

9. So your point is we are to blame for Time misleading Americans with a sham of a poll?

That surprises me from you SoCal.

Aren't you the one who created that wonderful cartoon of the lap dogs and Bush?

Yes, this poll compared to all the other lies is probably rather small, but it speaks volumes. Lots of people read Time magazine. Perhaps thats why Time magazine decided to omit Mr. Chavez from the cover.

I'm surprised that you would dismiss this as some 'silly' little insignificant poll because you are really missing the bigger picture.

Shoving the results under the rug because Chavez won in the poll results shows someone is not interested in the polling results and/or are apparently conducting fraudulent polls. Thats not good for a lot of Americans who believe the information they read in Time magazine is accurate.

When important and/or enlightening information is being knowingly omitted and/or falsified by a supposedly honest and legitimate magazine, how is that in any way providing Americans with a satisfactory product?

Chavez is an important figure right now. Its a big deal that he won Person of the Year, at least look how Time crows on and on about their "Person of the Year".

Chavez, whether you like him or not, has awakened a force that those in this Administration are concerned and/or disturbed about. Far be it for Americans to get any ideas on a revolution themselves.......

When we minimalize the dishonest and misleading actions of those that cover up and or knowingly mislead the public, we send a message to ourselves and others that we dont really matter - that we really don't have a right to ask for what we deserve and /or what we expect of a national magazine.

Things like this are a big deal because they are simply one more snowball in the avalanche coming our way, if we continue to ignore, rationalize and/or deny what is happening all around us.

[LTR]

16. The ability to DU or freep a poll never decided jack shit

Especially in the choosing of some irrelevant hack like Chavez, who the majority of the country could give two shits about. I don't recall Time using an internet poll to choose Charles Lindbergh as their MOTY. The web poll's just for fun. POTY is always decided by the staff.

Besides, runner-up was confirmed as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad anyway. Chavez is a nobody with a loud mouth. He's not as important as he thinks he is.

And Time's POTY is supposed to be whoever had the biggest impact on society, news, etc. during the year. The choice was a little strange, but the more I thought about it, the more sense it made. I like the pick.

[druidity33]

17. a nobody with a loud mouth...

Sorry, Chavez has done more in the past year to bring together NATIONS than has our (p)resident in his 6 years thus far. As for "us" being the POTY, that's BULLSHIT. If we were that powerful,, dontcha think we woulda been able to stop this travesty of a WAR?

get a grip...

[elperromagico]

18. Why are you so concerned about Person of the Year anyway?

It's just a damned magazine.

[shance]

25. Why are you not concerned?

with the fact that they have a Time Person of the Year poll that they imply in every conceivable way they are one in the same and yet they are not.

They don't even mention Chavez in the results.

Thats misleading and dishonest.

[elperromagico]

28. As I've said, it's just a damned magazine.

Who they put on their cover makes no difference to me.

Second of all, they did not "imply in every conceivable way" that whoever won the online poll would be the Person of the Year.

We've been around the bend about this several times. Until you've got some facts to back up your assertion that this poll was somehow binding, you're just engaging in self-delusion.

Have fun. I'll be over in the reality-based community if you need me.

[druidity33]

50. concerned?

nah... i couldn't care less about the poll. I'm offended solely by the "nobody with a loud mouth" comment. Chavez, despite the best efforts of the * administration continues to be a light on the world stage. A beacon for the working folk and less fortunate. His thrice(?) ELECTED presidency (by the most transparent and official of the worlds elections) has done more to help form a coalition in South America, free nations of IMF debt, bring needed resources to the poor of the region, than the last 300 or so colonial years of rule combined... yet he's still bashed here on DU constantly.

I can spot a slacker from a mile away when they start dissin' Chavez. It just means you've been duped by the propaganda. You've not done your homework... you don't take the time to find out things for yourself.

Sorry, not actually talking to you here... just the "Chavez is a Commie dictator!" crew.

So yeah, i'm not concerned about the POTY poll, haven't read Time in years.

But it would be cool to see the man get his props...
Viva Chavez! Viva Venezuela!

[LTR]

71. Oh, so now people who don't agree with you are 'slackers', huh?

Well, let me explain myself, Mr. "My Shit Don't Stink", I don't have a problem with the way Chavez runs Venezuela. Actually, I think he's done a lot of good things for his people.

The problem is, he's squandered his potential. When Bush lashed out at him a few years back, and Pat Robertson issued his fatwa against him, Hugo could have used that to his advantage, and explained that he didn't know why these people were attacking him. Instead, he went on obnoxious tirades and coddled up to sleazebags like Ahmadinejad and Castro.

Hell, I agree with Chavez that Bush is the devil, but the fact that he's basically been making an ass out of himself does him no favors. My beef with him is that he's squandered his potential to gain a whole lot of sympathy. He could have made more people accepting to what he's doing down there. And no, I haven't been duped by the propaganda or anyone else, though I wonder if you have. Chavez simply needs to learn to play it cool.

The fact that you see this all in vivid black and white (we're either with you or against you) doesn't make you much better than... oh, I think I'll stop right there.

[druidity33]

73. huh?

well, whatever... can't imagine who you're tirading at.

And hey, "says you" when it comes to Chavez "squandering" his reputation. He stands tall. So be it.

As for my shit, it sure stinks like everybody else so i'm not quite sure how you got the impression it didn't. As for the slackers out there... i was referring to people who "don't do their homework" and fall for the party line... if you see yourself in this description then i say again, so be it.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LTR]

29. Web polls are really for entertainment purposes only

Do you really think they're accurate? Especially when they turn into DU vs. Freep box stuffing?

As for Chavez, he had my sympathy a few years ago when he was constantly bashed by the wingnuts. I actually liked the guy. And he could have had the world's support in the palm of his hand as well, but he squandered all that by making an ass of himself at the UN (and while I agreed with him, he could have used a little more tact) and coddling up to Cuba and Iran just to piss everyone off.

Hey, I actually like Chavez. I think that deep down, he's done alot for the people of his country. But he's constantly shooting himself in the foot by doing things that embarass himself and his country. The only thing that makes Chavez strategically important on a world scale is Venezuela's oil supply. Other than that he's an obnoxious twit in dire need of a PR advisor.

And gee, nice attack with the "Hannity*" thing. Real classy.

:eyes:

[acmejack]

31. An irrelevant hack?

As compared to what? US? You like the pick? Your ability to dismiss democratically elected leader of the Country with fourth largest oil reserves in the World and a leftist trend setter as an irrelevant hack that the majority of the Country could give two shits about certainly proves you are irrelevant!

[bvar22]

34. Quick! Go to a library and study up on "Current Events, South America".

"irrelevant hack"..."nobody with a loud mouth"....??????

Sounds like too much US CorpoMedia.
You need to get out more. :)


The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[LTR]

35. I know about Chavez

So thank you for your condescending attack.

Chavez could have gained the world's sympathy following his attacks by Bush, Robertson, etc., but squandered it by behaving like an ass.

[roody]

37. Have you been to Venezuela lately?

Or any country south of the Rio Grande?

[greccogirl]

41. A poll is a poll - they weren't going to base it on that.

[AngryAmish]

42. Mustafa Kemal Ataturk won Time's "Man of the Century"

He was voted (online) as the most important person of the 20th Century. (Eventually Churchill took 1st because Ataturk and Mustafa Kemal Ataturk were counted seperately).

Anyway was Ataturk on the cover for "Man of the Century"? Of course not. He was not the most important man of the 20th Century. It was not a coverup.

Replace Ataturk with Chavez.

[SoCalDem]

55. Nope.. not what I meant.. All I meant was that Time never intended to

pay any attention to what the "public" thought. The polls are just devices to get people to click on their links :)

The mylar for the cover was ordered long before the polls went up :)

Time/Warner/CNN/mega-corp doesn't care what we think :(

[Contrite]

3. Perhaps we "won" because of the poll

The on-line voters pushed Chavez to the top

[bananas]

4. Here are the results

You have to vote to see the results:

http://www.time.com/time/personoftheyear/2006/walkup/

Who Should Be Person of the Year?
TIME's Person of the Year is the person or persons who most affected the news and our lives, for good or for ill, and embodied what was important about the year. Who do you think fits the bill this year?

36% Hugo Chavez
21% Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
11% Nancy Pelosi
11% The YouTube Guys
8% George W. Bush
7% Al Gore
5% Condoleezza Rice
2% Kim Jong Il

[Kiouni]

5. are you kidding I loved the mylar cover!

me me me me me! :sarcasm:

[Garbo 2004]

6. The poll is just marketing. It's not a factor in Time's choices. n/t

[cui bono]

7. Yeah, I doubt they were ever planning on using the poll results.

I certainly wouldn't if I were them. It's just used to generate interest and buzz about who it will be and get traffic to the site. Not sure why whoever wrote that thought it was a big deal.

[shance]

13. Yeah, who cares if they lie to us, we don't matter anyway.

I mean heck, they can just send our kids off to war so I should just be grateful that at least they are letting me vote in a poll, right?

What does our stupid opinion mean anyway?

We shouldn't assume Time is going to be honest to us, should we?

Thank you sir can I have another?

I mean, who are we to assume a supposedly reputable publication is going to actually print accurate and honest information?

[hughee99]

30. Seriously?

I don't remember Time magazine sending our kids off in a war, nor do I remember when I took the poll them saying ANYTHING that led me to believe they were going to automatically select the winner of their online poll, in which they noted, "NOTE: Poll results are not scientific and reflect the opinions of only those users who chose to participate. Poll results are not reflected in real time.", as their MOTY. In fact, it would be idiotic of them to imply that since it would make something that they think is so important (MOTY) open to the manipulation of online voters.

[cui bono]

44. What did Time magazine lie to us about?

When did Time magazine send our kids to war???

How is them picking a person of the year that doesn't match up with a non-scientific online poll of the world's general population lead you to accuse them of not printing "accurate and honest information"?

And what post #30 said.

[mogster]

8. It shows that 'you' might not be that important to Time after all n/t

[w4rma]

10. AOL Time Warner (nt)

[elperromagico]

11. So technically, he did win...

So long as he buys a copy of Time.

[tritsofme]

12. Because we all know internet polls are so scientific

reliable and present a representative sample of any given audience.

This internet poll, like nearly every other one, is just for show.

Not a conspiracy lurking in the shadow.

[shance]

14. HERE we go - we had to have the conspiracy criars come and visit.

You guys draw the conspiracy accusation like a dime store rubber badge.

:eyes:

[tritsofme]

15. I don't really have a better way to class accusations such as this

Did Time make it their policy to award its "Man of the Year" thing to whoever the most people on the internet recruited to vote in their internet poll multiple times?

[shance]

19. THATS WHAT PEOPLE THINK WHEN THEY ANSWER A POLL

Hellew????

But I assume you'd rather blame all the Time subscribers who have been mislead to believe POLLS TO ACTUALLY BE THE RESULTS SINCE THAT IS WHAT THE POLL IS BEING CONDUCTED FOR???

How dare Americans be so dumb to believe that a poll is for what they say it is supposed to be for!

[elperromagico]

20. Did Time actually announce that whoever won the poll

would be the Person of the Year? Did they announce at any point that the results were binding? Or was it just a poll to see what internet users thought?

Fill me in, as I seem to lack your passion for this subject.

[shance]

23. I think the web page is self explanatory. Not to mention Chavez is not even mentioned.

and he won the poll.

Not even an honorable mention?

No apparently there is no "binding" contractual statement saying the Time Person of the Year results will actually BE the Time Person of the Year.

That makes sense........NOT.

Why have a Time Person of the Year poll if you are not going to use the legitimate polling results?

Whats the point of a poll?

You have a point it should be stated, on the other hand, why not state that the results have no binding option. Because frankly if they did the latter, no one would participate in the poll.

It's very misleading.

http://www.time.com/time/personoftheyear/2006/walkup/

[tritsofme]

26. Did you happen to read the "note"

NOTE: Poll results are not scientific and reflect the opinions of only those users who chose to participate. Poll results are not reflected in real time.

Internet polls are just a fun little thing to have on a website, nothing more.

I really can't believe you are making such a stink about this.

[tritsofme]

60. Guess you didnt...

[elperromagico]

27. There's nothing misleading about it.

I've seen the page. At no point does it say "The winner of this poll will be Time's Person of the Year." If Time had announced at any point that these results were binding, I might be pissed off too. But they didn't.

Online polls are a dime a dozen -- every half-assed local TV station's website has one -- and usually they don't mean a thing. They're just a diversion and a way to make the website's visitors feel "involved."

Time's editorial board has always chosen the Person of the Year and probably always will.

[cui bono]

45. Did you happen to read the line "Who do you think fits the bill this year?"

NOT who do you vote for for person of the year and whoever wins is who we will pick.

Have you lived in the real world long? If you're this let down by something that you had no reason to expect you are in for some huge disappointments in your life.

[rpannier]

51. So when all those polls came out from various news services, etc

for the past five years that gave scrub high numbers on job performance, support for the war, etc did you take those polls as Gospel or did you dismiss them as having been freeped.

If you believe one poll is 100% accurate, then you must believe they all are.

[rpannier]

54. Chavez made the People who Mattered in 2006

It's not like he is totally ignored.

Besides, it's the opinion of a bunch of people.
It has always been that way since its inception. It's how men like hitler and stalin got on the list back in the 30's and 40's.

[rman]

33. Did Time announce they'd ignore the results of the poll?

Going so far as to not even mention who won it?

[rpannier]

53. Time has always stated that they have a panel that picks the person of the Year

It's been that way since they started doing the Man of the Year/Person of the Year magazine cover.

[rman]

61. So Time did not announce they'd ignore the results of the poll.

[tritsofme]

62. They did say

NOTE: Poll results are not scientific and reflect the opinions of only those users who chose to participate. Poll results are not reflected in real time.

Why would they base their selection on an internet poll so open to manipulation?

This really is one of the most ridiculous debates I have ever seen on this forum.

[rman]

64. Why would they not mention the poll result?

[tritsofme]

66. Why would they mention it?

What would they say?

In an internet poll which anyone can vote multiple times on, and the respondants to said poll are not representative of the country, the world, or Time Magazine subscribers, found that Hugo Chavez should be man of the year with 35% of some people on the internet.

[rman]

67. Would Time also not have mentioned the result if

people would have chosen Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi or The YouTube Guys?
http://www.time.com/time/personoftheyear/2006/walkup/

[tritsofme]

68. I don't see why they would.

I'm sure if you really do some digging into this conspiracy to snub Chavez, I wouldn't be surprised to find they have silly polls like this every year, and that every year the results are known or cared about by no one besides Time.com's webmaster.

[rman]

69. No-one but you claims a conspiracy

Who do you think makes the decision at Time to have an internet poll on "person of the year"?

[rman]

32. Yeah, Time's own opinion is much more scientific.

Got nothing to do with conspiracy.

[Selatius]

22. Bush should be time's person of the year.

The criteria does not include whether a person is a dictator or somebody is democratically elected. What the criteria includes is a person's impact on current world events.

I think it's safe to say George W. Bush should have won. If we look back through Time's archives, we see people like Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin winning Person of the Year (or "Man of the Year" if we want to be historically accurate).

[Swamp Rat]

24. Here ya go:

:D

[roody]

36. Just like the votes here. Those who win do not win.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

38. This Is A Ridiculous Premise. Seriously.

The poll very clearly asks "Who do you THINK will win?", not "Time magazine will select their person of the year based on this poll. Please choose carefully since we are bound by the results!".

To make an argument that the latter held any merit whatsoever is beyond absurd.

[lpbk2713]

39. Was Katherine Harris in on this?

:shrug: :shrug: :shrug:

[raccoon]

40. K&R. nt

[NYCGirl]

43. Chavez is here in the magazine:

http://www.time.com/time/personoftheyear/2006/people/7.html

[shance]

46. This is what I get when I click on that link.....

The page you've requested has been moved or taken off the site.
We apologize for the inconvenience.

There are several ways you can find the information you need:

Search the TIME Archive


E-Mail Us
Let us know how we can help you.E-mail us

Broken Links
To report broken links, E-mail us. Be sure to paste the bad URL in the body of the e-mail message.

Help Desk
Find out answers to the most frequently asked questions.
Click here to visit the help desk.

Home Page
Return to the TIME.com home page.

[NYCGirl]

48. That's funny, cause it comes up for me. Here's what it says (with a big pic of

Chavez):

Trying to Give Bush A Devil of a Time

South American independence hero Simón Bolívar warned his region's future leaders against trying to soar too high, lest, like the mythical Icarus, their "wings melt." A few months ago it seemed as though the pugnacious Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez and his left-wing Bolivarian Revolution might be feeling some heat. His Latin American allies were getting defeated in presidential elections in Mexico and Peru. After Chávez called President Bush "the devil" at the U.N. in September, the backlash helped the White House thwart oil-rich Venezuela's bid for a U.N. Security Council seat.

But even though global oil prices are drifting lower, Chávez's political fortunes seem to have caught an updraft. As Bush got waylaid by U.S. midterm elections this fall, Washington's old cold-war nemesis, Sandinista leader Daniel Ortega, regained the presidency in Nicaragua and Chávez, 52, was re-elected by a landslide this month. Despite his diplomatic missteps, Chávez's grandiose social programs and his vision of an integrated Latin America less dependent on the U.S. remain popular in the region. Says Chávez: "We're altering the nature of power in this hemisphere."

—By Tim Padgett

Edited to add Time pic:

[rpannier]

52. Mine has a big picture of Chavez

with the painting of Simon Bolivar behind him.

[intheflow]

58. That's what I get when I click on the OP link.

The link in the post you replied to is good.

[ContraBass Black]

47. The person is chosen and the article is written long before the poll concludes.

That's how it always is.

[Joe Chi Minh]

49. Hilarious! You couldn't satirise them could you.

[Taxloss]

56. It could be seen that Time has ENDORSED the poll, in a backhanded way.

The poll and its result are content on the internet; those who voted for Chavez created the result; those who create net content are "people of the year" ... Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

[StClone]

57. Hugo will take out TIME too!

Look what he has done to Bush and the Republicans!

I'll laugh along with my sulfur abhorring friend.

[Raskolnik]

59. Wait--are you saying an internet poll might not be determinative? Shocking!

Maybe an unscientific, easily manipulated online poll really shouldn't carry much weight for *any* purpose.

[lostinacause]

63. Given the amount of result manipulation that goes into online polling this is not a surprise.

Also consider that saying Chavez is the person of the year would result a significant amount of lost sales.

[knowledgeispwr]

65. Delete

[Balbus]

70. I think everything should be determined by online polls.

The presidency (can you say CIC Tom Cruise?), movie awards and even sporting events. And even if we don't use them to determine the outcome we can at least use the results to verify the actual outcome. So if San Diego Chargers actually win the Superbowl, but an online poll on Yahoo sports said most people thought Chicago Bears would win then we would have co-champions. So much more people would be happier that way.

[tritsofme]

72. It depends

If NFL.com puts a poll on their website asking who should win the Superbowl, and they don't disclose that they are not taking the results of the poll seriously, then obviously there is some sort of conspiracy if the other team ends up winning.