YOU are the person of the year

The amount of ire and angst being generated in the "web 2.0" world over Time magazine's recent "person of the year" cover story is a little amusing. For those who haven't been paying attention, Time basically named anyone who participated in the act of creating user generated content on the web as the "person of the year." We have seen the enemy and it is us. Read the Time cover story and decide for yourself.

Many have responded in anger and with some snippiness at what they view as Time's patronizing approach (see Nora Ehpron's funny article on this, as well as some general responses.) Much of the criticism has been along the lines of "I don't need a corporate behemoth to tell me I'm cool." In some cases, people feel that Time was a bit smug and disingenuous in celebrating how ordinary people have "[seized] the reins of the global media . . . and beating the pros at their own game." Who would those pros be? Time magazine? And of course, everyone is incensed that Time didn't pick someone involved with the war in Iraq or Iran or Afghanistan or Korea or Somalia or Darfur or...

Frankly, I really think all this hue and cry is a bit much.

First of all, people, calm down -- it's Time magazine. It's not like the Dalai Lama or God or your mother said this. Some editors at the magazine thought "hey, we don't want to pick and choose between all the good and bad people in the world. There's too many. We'll piss someone off whoever we choose - let's make it easy." Maybe it's not the height of journalistic valour, but then again, it's not like they chose Hitler or his modern day equivalent (fill in your most feared dictator here).

Second, the selection of "you" as the Time person of the year certainly has achieved one goal. It's gotten us all talking about who the person of the year should be. Sure, it's lame. But it reminds me of a story someone told me once about their teenager who was outraged at a piece of modern art he saw. He thought it was terrible, anyone could have done it, why did people think that was art, etc. He went on about it for days. Maybe it was terrible art -- who knows? But it started a discussion and a consideration that might not have happened otherwise.

Finally, and perhaps more important, Time is simply recognizing what we've all been talking about for a while. The power of the Internet, combined with the mobility and multi-purpose nature of consumer electronics, has brought heretofore unseen levels of engagement. Whether it's a "new" level of engagement or a "heightened" level of engagement (as the Pew Trust's recent report suggests) the truth is that this level of engagement (or e-scapism if you will) has profoundly impacted how we work, play and live.

By way of analogy, consider the automobile. For years it was "around," something some people enjoyed, but society didn't really organize itself around the car. But then we hit a "tipping point" in Gladwell's terms, and now we can't imagine building a community that couldn't accomodate a car. Society has been profoundly and fundamentally changed by this invention. It didn't happen overnight, but it did happen. We're in the midst of seeing that happen with user engagement...