SOLDIER

Stephen Bainbridge)

FILED UNDER: Military Affairs
James Joyner
About James Joyner
James Joyner is Professor and Department Head of Security Studies at Marine Corps University's Command and Staff College and a nonresident senior fellow at the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security at the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm vet. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter @DrJJoyner.

Comments

  1. It’s called the “man of the year” designation, but it’s often not a man at all–or even a person. (Like in the sixties, when they honored a “generation.”)

    As I understand it, the first woman to be the “man of the year” was selected/recognized in the thirties.

  2. Rodney Dill says:

    J. P. Carter blew it. Time Magazine got it right. In this case intentions out weigh semantics.

  3. J.P. Carter says:

    Semantics? Then why did Time change “Man of the Year” to “Person of the Year”? Was that a silly dispute over semantics?

    The truth is, Mr. Dill, that words have meanings. Just becasue some people think that the military is composed of faceless, interchangeable “soldiers” does not make it so.

  4. Rodney Dill says:

    The truth is, Mr. Dill, that words have meanings. Just becasue some people think that the military is composed of faceless, interchangeable “soldiers” does not make it so.

    Naming the US Solder the Person of the year does not make them either faceless or interchangeable to me. Nor does it, in my view, constitute an attempt to only honor the Army footsoldier. I can understand and appreciate the attempt to place credit where credit is due, without trying to read more into it.

  5. Mac Swift says:

    In another twist of irony, LGF points out Time’s inconsistency in naming the Person of the Year while one of its reporters hang out with the very same people who want to KILL those same “Persons” of the Year.

    Is this what they mean by “fair and balanced” reporting?

  6. James Joyner says:

    Mac: I’m not sure how Time is to avoid that, to be honest. Talking to the enemy is reasonably part of getting out the whole story. That’s not to say that they should be portrayed as equivalent to our forces, but telling only one side of the story amounts to propaganda.

  7. Mac Swift says:

    I don’t know, giving terrorists equal time in the media tends to rub me the wrong way for some reason.

  8. James Joyner says:

    I don’t think it’s a matter of giving equal time but rather of telling the story. It’s a reasonable thing to want to know what motivates the enemy, how they think, and that sort of thing.

  9. Mac Swift says:

    That’s reasonable enough. Given Time’s track record though, you’ll forgive me if I’m a bit skeptical, with visions of Reuters’ “neutral language” dancing on my head. 🙂