One put his family jewels on the chopping board. The other is just doing something someone else would have done anyway and gotten rich too. You know what I think of TIME's decision.
By Jon Friedman, MarketWatch
NEW YORK (MarketWatch) — When it comes to defining 2010, one story stands out as the most newsworthy: WikiLeaks.
The WikiLeaks furor underscored the dark side of the digital revolution. The mass-scale disclosures of proprietary documents — said to threaten America’s national security — showed us the pitfalls and dangers of the Internet. We understood the chilling implications of a world in which someone — anyone — could easily post highly sensitive information worldwide.
WikiLeaks is, of course, a high-profile example of the Internet serving as the vehicle for spreading classified information about our nation’s diplomatic relations and foreign policies. It is also a case that people can relate to.
Reuters
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.
What if someone posted damaging information about you on the Web and you were helpless to stop the distribution, just as the Obama administration is unable to halt the flow of data coming from WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange?
WikiLeaks and its arrogant, don’t-mess-with-me image is personified by Assange.
Then we have the most popular story of 2010: Facebook. It’s largely an inspiring saga. Facebook is terrific. It provides the masses with what the media have provided all these years: news, information, commentary and entertainment. Facebook is a gigantic escape for millions of people.
It does one more thing that the media have failed to do: provide a community for its users. If newspapers and magazines had done this years ago, they wouldn’t be in so much trouble today.
WikiLeaks and Assange versus Facebook and its founder, 26-year-old Mark Zuckerberg, who is so interesting that Hollywood made a successful major motion picture about his rise, “The Social Network.” Facebook versus WikiLeaks. Good versus evil, right?
Time magazine (TWX 31.84, +0.19, +0.60%) , which takes great pride in its annual Person of the Year ballyhoo, made its opinion clear last week. It selected Zuckerberg to be its Person of the Year for 2010.
On the face of it, there’s nothing wrong with the choice. Yes, Zuckerberg sure did have a year that any entrepreneur dreams of. He is a billionaire. He is famous. He is charismatic (well, for a dweeb, anyway). He is a noted philanthropist, too, having donated $100 million to Newark, NJ.
Reuters
Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg
Zuckerberg is the ultimate feel-good story, and Time likes feel-good tales. It’s ironic how Zuckerberg, who was portrayed as a villain for much of this year because of controversy over Facebook’s privacy policies, has been recast as a good guy in contrast to Assange.
Still, Time blew it this time. Time could’ve and should’ve opted for Assange because he stands for something — yes, it might be sordid, evil, even, but Assange is the more compelling figure. If the digital revolution was the dominant story of the year, Time should have recognized the person behind the news.
Time’s choice says plenty about the way high-profile awards are often handed out in America. Too often, institutions take the safe route. That may be why the traditional media are in such distress today. They have remained stagnant while digital operations have usurped them.
Time did the same thing in 2001, as well. The story of that year, we remember grimly in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, was terrorism in the U.S. The magazine chose New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani to personify the story and the news year — not Osama bin Laden, who had masterminded the heinous events of Sept. 11.
Giuliani earned his stripes by energetically rallying New York — and the world — in the wake of the disaster. Time conveniently forgot that Giuliani was a rather unpopular mayor on Sept. 10, 2001 — and the tragedy gave him an opportunity to salvage his reputation.
In 2001, Time made the call to reward good instead of recognizing evil. Does that ring a bell? Light over darkness. (Don’t get me wrong: I’m not comparing Assange, who is being portrayed as a sinister individual, to bin Laden.)
What Net neutrality rules mean
The FCC has approved rules that would give the federal government authority to regulate Internet traffic and prevent broadband providers from selectively blocking Web traffic. WSJ's Amy Schatz explains what the new rules really mean.
You could even draw parallels in other prominent awards, such as, say, the Best Picture Oscar. Take a few examples: “Dances with Wolves” over “Goodfellas” in 1990, “Rocky” trumping “Network” (and “Taxi Driver”) in 1976 and the most galling case of all, “Forrest Gump” topping “Pulp Fiction” in 1994.
To be fair, Time has sometimes made difficult choices. In 1938, it named Adolf Hitler as its most newsworthy subject. Joseph Stalin received the honor twice, in 1939 and 1942. The last time Time went out on a limb was 1979, when it tapped Ayatollah Khomeini. Read more about Time’s past choices.
Time’s editors bristle at any notion that they took the easy way out. Of course, nobody at the magazine truly minds much because a controversy — even a contrived one like this — is bound to be good for business. Any time someone criticizes the Person of the Year choice, he or she implicitly is publicizing the award. As the line goes, all publicity is good publicity.
I realize that I, too, am playing into Time’s hands by writing about the Person of the Year award, even as I criticize the selection here. That’s OK. I just wish Time had gotten it right.
MEDIA WEB QUESTION OF THE DAY: Did Time make the right decision by picking Zuckerberg?
Jon Friedman is a senior columnist for MarketWatch in New York.
