portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary portland metro

imperialism & war | media criticism

Cancel Subscription to TIME

shame forced me to cancel my subscription
The decision to call George W. Bush "Person of the Year" is so despicable and unutterably shameful that I have canceled my subscription to TIME Magazine.

I strongly urge you to do the same!

Here is the online form to cancel:

The loss of $20 in the balance of your subscription will the be GAIN of honor for all of America, when TIME Magazine has to admit that their editorial policy of shameless devotion to Bush and his new Vietnam has denigrated and destroyed our standing in the world.

The pitiful apology that TIME makes is a joke:

Cancel Your Subscription Today!

I AGREE 22.Dec.2004 10:42


I don't subscribe to that piece of Corporate Media trash, but if I did, I'd cancel it immediately. I hope all of you that do subscribe will cancel...convince your friends and family to as well.

A technique that I've used in bookstores and newstands, whenever I see a Mag or Book with the Smirking Chimp on the front, is to turn it upside down. It is subtle, but makes a point.

thats funny 22.Dec.2004 12:44


when im ever in a store (hardly ever) that has crap like that on the shelfs i flip them around and upsidedown

editor 22.Dec.2004 12:53


if ya dont have a subscription to cancel
you can still write the editor and tell them why you would never get one
send your email to

I have a subscription to Time from unused frequent flyer miles 22.Dec.2004 13:13


I just went out to the mail box and our hero is on the cover. The other news magazines are just as bad. I'll never ask for Time again. I will send a nasygram to the editor.

He follows in Hitler's footsteps.. 22.Dec.2004 14:23

couldn't resist

In 1938 Hitler was Time's Man of the Year. Stalin followed shortly thereafter. Bush Jr. is in good company..

I think The Man is the obvious choice for this... 22.Dec.2004 14:45

Father Time

This is not an award - it is NOT bestowed on the "greatest" or "best" person of the year. It is given to the most *influential* person. I think we can all agree that, although not pleasant to think about, the Bushmeister has definitely been the most influential person with respect to global events in this past year. Look at Iraq, Afghanistan, the Kyoto agreement, the Patriot Act, and even his "influence" on the election itself.

As much as it pains me to say it, I'm with the corporate media on this one...

Well... 22.Dec.2004 15:14

Tony Blair's dog

that's Time's excuse.

The problem with that is that they make it look ok to
be a lying, cheating criminal gangster.

Especially since they don't have the backbone to tell
the truth about the scumbag and his handlers.

Which means that they support the lies ad nauseam.

no time for time 22.Dec.2004 15:15


If time's person of the year award criteria based on that person who has been most influential in world events in the course of a year directs them to give the award to monsters like hitler and bonehead born again goofs like bush, maybe they should get a clue and revise the entire premise to the award.

Are they perharps indirectly trying to focus attention on that one person who has fucked things up most in the world over the course of the year?

Yes, but is he a revolultionary? 22.Dec.2004 15:23


I agree with the above poster in that Bush, like Stalin before him, was annointed person of the year in accordance with his vast influence on the world. However, what I question is the subheadline which claims that Bush is a revolutionary. Yes, it can mean any kind of revolution, but to me it's obvious the magazine is painting Bush as a true blue all American style revolutionary, ala Paine and Jefferson etal. Even though, unlike previous American patriots, Bush has never been to war or even completed his duty as a National Guardsman. Thinking about it, I conclude that it may have to do with the fact that, as some intrepid journalists have reported, the CIA has infiltrated the media. What more clever spin for the military industrial media than to portray Bush as a patriotic revolutionary? It probably doesn't matter that there is really nothing to back up this claim, just that it is postulated and the public buys it. Also note that Time presented Bush in a hero's light--visting soldiers etc--in a 14 page story. Boy, framing the story has never had more meaning than with this piece of over the top pr.

Honor NOT an Honor 22.Dec.2004 17:49


That was my take on it - that the person chosen has wielded the most influence over world events for good or for bad in the previousyear. What I have an enormous problem with is some of the accompanying text, which heaps praise upon Bush and credits him with attributes he does not possess.

His winning this "honor" is a shameful thing, not something to brag about. But I doubt he will understand the difference and his ass-kissing appointees are not going to enlighten him.

read it again 22.Dec.2004 19:17


i think some of you need to read the link to blue lemur again. or for the first time.
the letter quite nicely, for someone who can read, places George W. Bush in the category of "evil". they equate the man you all love to hate so much with Adolph Hitler and Khomeini. read it. i cant help it if you cant understand plain English.

I suppose it may be a grammatical point. but no, i think it is quite clear:

"The [man of the year] could be a force for good...or for evil. And to the latter, George W. Bush must be added for 2004."

Do you think they meant "former?" No, i think you morons didnt read it.

No wonder we have so many problems....

I suggest you ORDER a subscription to TIME. think about that!

Now I see it... 22.Dec.2004 19:21

Father Time

I don't read Time, and hadn't seen the cover. I had just heard their "it's not an award" statement in the past, and thought I should bring it up. But thanks Indy and Casbah - I didn't realize there was a sickening sub title.

Revolutionary? True revolution would be going against the bloodthirsty lusts of the Right. It would be standing up to Israel, and demanding a state for the people of the West Bank. It would be CAFE standards high enough to render SUV's obsolete, making them *cost-ineffective* to produce.

It would be stepping down voluntarily and allowing someone actually in control of their faculties to lead this country.

Hey, I just thought of something 22.Dec.2004 22:49


If you got that issue of time, don't throw it away. Keep it in good condition and store it somewhere safe. I bet it will be worth some money someday.

time needs to change 'man of the year' to something more appropriate 22.Dec.2004 23:21

flower skunk

Besides being terribly sexist (what? aren't there any influential women out there?), it seems like a very inaccurate title for whatever it is there bestowing. When I think of someone being granted, say, 'employee of the year', I'm thinking of someone who bestowed something GOOD on the company. I mean, you wouldn't expect the sales guy who lost a multi-million dollar account which plunged the company into bankruptcy to be given 'employee of the year' even if his blunder WAS the most influential thing that happen to the company.
With that said, I can't really say if this is bad or good as I haven't read the article to judge for myself. I probably will wait 'til it shows up in the local library to read it since I hate buying these corporate news magazines no matter what there politics. Two-thirds of the content is ads (or marketing articles which are really just disguised 'ads'). The rest is just watered-down, lets-not-upset-the-masses, crap which is usually about 3 months out of date. Let's face it, the internet has pretty much killed any reason to even own a subscription to a magazine. Five years ago, I used to have at least 4 subscriptions (and sometimes as many as 7) to many magazines. Today, I don't even have one. Everything in these magazines can be gotten by searching on Google at a lot cheaper rate: free :-)

Bush's Folly 23.Dec.2004 02:40

A History 101 question

With Bush winning Time's "Man of the Year" sales gimmick, I have a question to throw out do you think the Prez is more concerned about his place in history than the job at hand? Or to put it another way, will they sell key chain replicas of the Time cover in his Presidential Library's gift shop?

Like it or not, whether true or not, here is an elected official for the highest office in the US. He has wrapped the flag and his fundamentalist religious beliefs around his administration. And now this very same pious man is going to install democracy in the Arabic Middle East. To my knowledge a feat never before accomplished in history.

And from the look of things, he doesn't care how many people get slaughtered in the process. He is still pushing for the elections in Iraq on his time frame irregardless of the increased violence by the mujihadeen/resistance, the atrocities that have fallen on the Iraqi people, or that the newly elected government may only last a day before the country ignites into civil war.

I feel nauseous at the thought that this whole blood bath is just a way to up the amount for the publishing rights to his pending memoirs.

got 2 copies 23.Dec.2004 08:53


I ran out and bought two copies, one to crap on and one to cover it up.

flower skunk... 23.Dec.2004 16:38


it actually -is- 'person of the year'

I dunno how long ago they changed it.

is that you? 23.Dec.2004 18:35


unfortunatley, mainstream media has consequences 23.Dec.2004 23:56

Generican Propagandart

merry xmas
of the year
of the year

too late 24.Dec.2004 05:11


<<<their editorial policy of shameless devotion to Bush and his new Vietnam has denigrated and destroyed our standing in the world. >>>

too late! US standing in the world is rock-bottom and couldn't get much lower.

Integrity missing 24.Dec.2004 07:52


A few years back, Time Magazine named Einstein "Person of the Century", while it has been proven again and again that Einstein was a plagiarist of the century, whos contibution to science was very very minimal. Check:
Are we looking for integrity in our mass media?

uncensoring my art 25.Dec.2004 05:16

Generican Propagandart

I wonder why the editors never explain *why* they delete comments?

Perhaps my art was "degenerate"?

You simpletons are missing the point 25.Dec.2004 06:23

Your Chaperone

Time's "Man of the Year" does not mean:

- Best Man of the Year
- Man Who Did the Greatest Good This Year
- Man We Like the Most
- Man We Think You Should Vote For

Rather, it means "man who had the most influence on news events". You would know this if you had READ THE FRIGGIN' MAGAZINE. Hitler was man of the year once - and sure enough, that year he'd done more to shape the news than anyone else. Stalin was man of the year once - er, I forgot, some people here admire Stalin.

Let's see - criticizing without reading, making uninformed attacks, and spreading lies about events - are you folks here the far right or the far left? I can't keep track anymore.

-Your Chaperone