<div>This is really interesting Paul and to me it raises the issues of whether:-</div>
<div> </div>
<div>1) there really is a democracy and should we assume that there should be a democracy?</div>
<div>2) what is the philosophical emphasis of this move by Time?</div>
<div>3)Who determines the governance system within the election of "Time Magazine's Person of the year"?</div>
<div>4)Who owns Time Magazine?</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Kind Regards,</div>
<div><br>Sala<br><br></div>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 1:58 PM, Paul Lehto <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:lehto.paul@gmail.com">lehto.paul@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">For both internet and transparency purposes, Time Magazine's Person of<br>the Year choice, in light of its own Readers' Poll results, is<br>
astounding.<br><br>First, Time Magazine's Person of the Year starts with the Time<br>Readers' Poll -- which is now closed -- and which shows Assange in<br>first place, easily way ahead of everyone else for Time's 2010 Person<br>
of the Year:<br><br>1. Julian Assange 382,026 votes, and 92% avg<br>rating (all voters)<br>2. Recep Tayyip Erdogan 233,639 (avg rating 80%<br>3. Lady Gaga 146,378 (avg rating 70%)<br>
4. Jon Stewart and John Colber 78,145, (avg rating 81%)<br>[snip]<br>6. Barack Obama 27,478 (avg rating 58%)<br>8. the Chilean Miners 29,124 (avg rating 47%).<br>9. The Unemployed American 19,605 (avg rating 66%)<br>
10. Marc Zuckerberg 18,353 (avg rating 52%)<br>[snip]<br>See <a href="http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2028734_2029036,00.html" target="_blank">http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2028734_2029036,00.html</a><br>
<br>SO, after the Time Readers' Poll, WHO IS TIME'S PERSON OF THE YEAR?<br><br>Well.... There was a "NOTE" attached to the Readers' Poll" to the<br>direct effect that "TIME's editors who choose the actual Person of<br>
the Year reserve the right to disagree."<br><br>And, boy, did Time editors ever disagree with the people that are<br>their own readers and customers.<br><br>With a publication date of today (December 15, 2010) they chose the<br>
10th place finisher, Marc Zuckerbook of Facebook, who got less than<br>one vote for every 20.8 votes Assange got from Time Readers' Poll, and<br>got only about half the positive ranking of Assange (52% for<br>Zuckerberg, 92% for Assange).<br>
<a href="http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/0,28757,2036683,00.html" target="_blank">http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/0,28757,2036683,00.html</a><br><br>But, to me, the biggest contrast and biggest shock, bigger than<br>
choosing the 10th place finisher over the first place finisher in the<br>Readers' Poll, is the stark contrast between #1 Assange and #10<br>Zuckerberg on WHOSE transparency should get facilitated:<br><br>Assange is all about transparency/accountability for the powerful,<br>
while Facebook (while it has other functions) is about transparency<br>(and necessarily accountability of various kinds) for the average<br>people. Facebook for example, is being monitored by US government<br>officials to gather information and intelligence on its own citizens<br>
in certain contexts. Things like Facebook make it enormously easier<br>for the government to monitor aspects of the private lives of netizens<br>who often innocently think they're sharing just with their "Facebook<br>
friends."<br><br>TIME has had Hitler as man of the year decades ago, and routinely<br>stresses that selection of a Person of the Year isn't a personal<br>endorsement.<br><br>But it is telling, isn't it, that if TIME thinks Zuckerberg's social<br>
media is the wave of the present and of the future, TIME nevertheless<br>had to resort to grossly undemocratic means to amplify the cause of a<br>Facebook founder and ignore the overwhelmingly more popular cause of<br>accountability / transparency for the powerful governments and<br>
corporations in the USA and around the world represented by Assange.<br><br>Simply put, the person that has the power to demand or force<br>transparency on the other person or entity (like government) is the<br>master, and the one who must yield their privacy pretty much whenever<br>
asked, and must be totally transparent when required is the servant or<br>slave entity.<br><br>Despite the "relevance" of Zuckerberg, I find Time's choice to ignore<br>its own readers and undemocratically choose Zuckerberg to be chilling<br>
when the type of "transparency" fostered by Facebook is compared to<br>the type of transparency offered and fostered by Julian Assange and<br>Wikileaks.<br><br>In the Assange/Zuckergerg contrast, the status of ascending masters<br>
and descending slaves is clear. Unless, of course, Assange continues<br>to win and decisions like TIME's POY debacle are exposed to a form of<br>transparency sometimes called robust criticism.<br><br>Paul Lehto, J.D.<br>
____________________________________________________________<br>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br> <a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>To be removed from the list, send any message to:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a><br><br>For all list information and functions, see:<br> <a href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br>
<br>Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Salanieta Tudrau Tamanikaiwaimaro<br>
P.O.Box 17862<br>Suva<br>Fiji Islands<br><br>Cell: +679 9982851<br>Alternate Email: <a href="mailto:s.tamanikaiwaimaro@tfl.com.fj">s.tamanikaiwaimaro@tfl.com.fj</a><br><br>"Wisdom is far better than riches."<br>