[governance] TIME Magazine's Person of the Year (Battle over WHO must be Transparent)
Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com
Wed Dec 15 23:41:32 EST 2010
Who determines what is off topic and what is not?
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 5:34 PM, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
> This is actually nothing to do with Internet Governance...not even
> remotely.
>
> It's completely Off-Topic for this list AND the original posting
> contained a Godwin, so let's let it rest, eh? We have actual
> important topics to discuss.
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> McTim
> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
> route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
>
> On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 7:02 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
> <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Respectfully, that is your presumption. You cannot presume to know what
> my
> > expectations are. That being said, I would proffer that each context is
> > different and that is why I had raised the questions I had raised
> initially.
> >
> > :)
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 4:59 PM, David Goldstein
> > <goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> >>
> >> Oh this is just balmy... next you'll expect that a newspaper or other
> >> publication to follow the views of readers expressed in vox pops or
> opinion
> >> polls they conduct before they write an editorial.
> >> ________________________________
> >> From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <
> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>
> >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; David Goldstein
> >> <goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au>
> >> Cc: Paul Lehto <lehto.paul at gmail.com>; Rui Correia
> >> <correia.rui at gmail.com>; Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza
> >> <caffsouza at gmail.com>
> >> Sent: Thu, 16 December, 2010 2:54:55 PM
> >> Subject: Re: [governance] TIME Magazine's Person of the Year (Battle
> over
> >> WHO must be Transparent)
> >>
> >> At the heart of the matter, is the "bottom line", Who pays for the ads
> and
> >> sponsors its publications? Is it susceptible to being banned? Is it
> afraid
> >> of being "controversial" and I suppose that as a magazine, the editors
> can
> >> do what they want.
> >>
> >> Respectfully, David I beg to differ. I think the issue that Paul raised
> is
> >> at the heart of the Internet Governance Debate (political basket) even
> if
> >> indirectly. Yes, the magazine can invoke its exclusionary clause and
> >> exercise its discretion by virtue of the disclaimer that it incorporates
> but
> >> the resounding message that it sends to its readers is a resounding:-
> >>
> >> 1) thank you for purchasing Time Magazine, we enjoy bringing you news
> and
> >> getting you to pay for it;
> >> 2) we cannot afford to be seen as "siding" with anyone who is a threat
> to
> >> US National Security and risk being sanctioned.
> >>
> >> This raises issues of "transparency" and if polling takes place via the
> >> internet, then of course it is "discussion" worthy. Below is an article
> from
> >> the NYT:-
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Breaking News Alert
> >> The New York Times
> >> Wed, December 15, 2010 -- 9:08 PM ET
> >> -----
> >> U.S. Tries to Build Case for Conspiracy by WikiLeaks Founder
> >> Federal prosecutors, seeking to build a case against the
> >> WikiLeaks leader Julian Assange for his role in a huge
> >> dissemination of classified government documents, are looking
> >> for evidence of any collusion in his early contacts with an
> >> Army intelligence analyst suspected of leaking the
> >> information.
> >> Justice Department officials are trying to find out whether
> >> Mr. Assange encouraged or even helped the analyst, Pfc.
> >> Bradley Manning, to extract classified military and State
> >> Department files from a government computer system. If he did
> >> so, they believe they could charge him as a conspirator in
> >> the leak, not just as a passive recipient of the documents
> >> who then published them.
> >> Read More:
> >> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/16/world/16wiki.html?emc=na
> >>
> >> On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 4:31 PM, David Goldstein
> >> <goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Oh for god's sake, why can't Time choose someone as their person of the
> >>> year
> >>> different to their readers?
> >>>
> >>> Under what circumstances are the editors and those who chose the person
> >>> of the
> >>> year bound by any reader support?
> >>>
> >>> To think that Time as a magazine, who made it clear they reserved the
> >>> right to
> >>> disagree with their readers, should not be capable of making their own
> >>> choice is
> >>> frankly stupid.
> >>>
> >>> David
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ----- Original Message ----
> >>> From: Paul Lehto <lehto.paul at gmail.com>
> >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Rui Correia <correia.rui at gmail.com>
> >>> Cc: Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza <caffsouza at gmail.com>
> >>> Sent: Thu, 16 December, 2010 11:58:15 AM
> >>> Subject: [governance] TIME Magazine's Person of the Year (Battle over
> WHO
> >>> must
> >>> be Transparent)
> >>>
> >>> For both internet and transparency purposes, Time Magazine's Person of
> >>> the Year choice, in light of its own Readers' Poll results, is
> >>> astounding.
> >>>
> >>> First, Time Magazine's Person of the Year starts with the Time
> >>> Readers' Poll -- which is now closed -- and which shows Assange in
> >>> first place, easily way ahead of everyone else for Time's 2010 Person
> >>> of the Year:
> >>>
> >>> 1. Julian Assange 382,026 votes, and 92% avg
> >>> rating (all voters)
> >>> 2. Recep Tayyip Erdogan 233,639 (avg rating 80%
> >>> 3. Lady Gaga 146,378 (avg rating 70%)
> >>> 4. Jon Stewart and John Colber 78,145, (avg rating 81%)
> >>> [snip]
> >>> 6. Barack Obama 27,478 (avg rating 58%)
> >>> 8. the Chilean Miners 29,124 (avg rating 47%).
> >>> 9. The Unemployed American 19,605 (avg rating 66%)
> >>> 10. Marc Zuckerberg 18,353 (avg rating 52%)
> >>> [snip]
> >>> See
> >>>
> >>>
> http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2028734_2029036,00.html
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> SO, after the Time Readers' Poll, WHO IS TIME'S PERSON OF THE YEAR?
> >>>
> >>> Well.... There was a "NOTE" attached to the Readers' Poll" to the
> >>> direct effect that "TIME's editors who choose the actual Person of
> >>> the Year reserve the right to disagree."
> >>>
> >>> And, boy, did Time editors ever disagree with the people that are
> >>> their own readers and customers.
> >>>
> >>> With a publication date of today (December 15, 2010) they chose the
> >>> 10th place finisher, Marc Zuckerbook of Facebook, who got less than
> >>> one vote for every 20.8 votes Assange got from Time Readers' Poll, and
> >>> got only about half the positive ranking of Assange (52% for
> >>> Zuckerberg, 92% for Assange).
> >>> http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/0,28757,2036683,00.html
> >>>
> >>> But, to me, the biggest contrast and biggest shock, bigger than
> >>> choosing the 10th place finisher over the first place finisher in the
> >>> Readers' Poll, is the stark contrast between #1 Assange and #10
> >>> Zuckerberg on WHOSE transparency should get facilitated:
> >>>
> >>> Assange is all about transparency/accountability for the powerful,
> >>> while Facebook (while it has other functions) is about transparency
> >>> (and necessarily accountability of various kinds) for the average
> >>> people. Facebook for example, is being monitored by US government
> >>> officials to gather information and intelligence on its own citizens
> >>> in certain contexts. Things like Facebook make it enormously easier
> >>> for the government to monitor aspects of the private lives of netizens
> >>> who often innocently think they're sharing just with their "Facebook
> >>> friends."
> >>>
> >>> TIME has had Hitler as man of the year decades ago, and routinely
> >>> stresses that selection of a Person of the Year isn't a personal
> >>> endorsement.
> >>>
> >>> But it is telling, isn't it, that if TIME thinks Zuckerberg's social
> >>> media is the wave of the present and of the future, TIME nevertheless
> >>> had to resort to grossly undemocratic means to amplify the cause of a
> >>> Facebook founder and ignore the overwhelmingly more popular cause of
> >>> accountability / transparency for the powerful governments and
> >>> corporations in the USA and around the world represented by Assange.
> >>>
> >>> Simply put, the person that has the power to demand or force
> >>> transparency on the other person or entity (like government) is the
> >>> master, and the one who must yield their privacy pretty much whenever
> >>> asked, and must be totally transparent when required is the servant or
> >>> slave entity.
> >>>
> >>> Despite the "relevance" of Zuckerberg, I find Time's choice to ignore
> >>> its own readers and undemocratically choose Zuckerberg to be chilling
> >>> when the type of "transparency" fostered by Facebook is compared to
> >>> the type of transparency offered and fostered by Julian Assange and
> >>> Wikileaks.
> >>>
> >>> In the Assange/Zuckergerg contrast, the status of ascending masters
> >>> and descending slaves is clear. Unless, of course, Assange continues
> >>> to win and decisions like TIME's POY debacle are exposed to a form of
> >>> transparency sometimes called robust criticism.
> >>>
> >>> Paul Lehto, J.D.
> >>> ____________________________________________________________
> >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >>>
> >>> For all list information and functions, see:
> >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >>>
> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ____________________________________________________________
> >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >>>
> >>> For all list information and functions, see:
> >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >>>
> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Salanieta Tudrau Tamanikaiwaimaro
> >> P.O.Box 17862
> >> Suva
> >> Fiji Islands
> >>
> >> Cell: +679 9982851
> >> Alternate Email: s.tamanikaiwaimaro at tfl.com.fj
> >>
> >> "Wisdom is far better than riches."
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Salanieta Tudrau Tamanikaiwaimaro
> > P.O.Box 17862
> > Suva
> > Fiji Islands
> >
> > Cell: +679 9982851
> > Alternate Email: s.tamanikaiwaimaro at tfl.com.fj
> >
> > "Wisdom is far better than riches."
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> > governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >
> > For all list information and functions, see:
> > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >
> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
--
Salanieta Tudrau Tamanikaiwaimaro
P.O.Box 17862
Suva
Fiji Islands
Cell: +679 9982851
Alternate Email: s.tamanikaiwaimaro at tfl.com.fj
"Wisdom is far better than riches."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101216/cb352a42/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
For all list information and functions, see:
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
More information about the Governance
mailing list