rudolph

Rudolph Giuliani got voted Time's Person of the Year 2001. Beginning to think that this title, which Time prides itself on awarding each year is getting too commercialised for my taste. *anti commercialisation sentiments running high* The man is great, in the way he spurred NYC to rebuild and rebond after the 9/11 crisis. He got the act in place while Bush was whisked off in Air Force #1 to Camp David while Ol' Dick was supposedly guarded in a secret location, which expectedly was later divulged by some officials, making it not so secret anymore. *why am I not surprised*. He was on ground zero in place of Bush, encouraged the fire fighters, attended many funerals of the unsung heroes who died when the building collapsed on them while they were on their saving missions. Maybe his close association with the fire fighters, mainly due to his background, helped and shaped this. Not so much of doing it out of duty but out of friendship, which is different from doing something out of respect.

I am not being inhumane here but even after reading the numerous articles, I dont feel for the guy in the way Time wants us to. He's a good guy (one of the rare finds in the US Senate, Congress and administration altogether) but not great. There's a difference there. The reports "saintified" him and made him seem like God's gift to NYC in man's hour of need, not to mention his feat of overshadowing Bush, but it doesn't explain why he is the Person of the Year. Of course, Time focused on what he did post-9/11 and conveniently left out the pre. Rather, they air-brushed his political past (plagued with scandals, divorce and his shameful loss to Clinton *I think. American politics lost me there for a while so correct me if I am wrong*) and repainted a magnanimious potrait, even to the extent of making his mistress look as if she could be the warming caretaker of NYC. For heaven's sake, she assisted in breaking up the marriage.

Where then does the commercialisation come in, you may ask. How about for the fact that Time was contemplating between choosing Osama and Giuliani as the Person of the Year. Criteria for the title consist mainly of the newsworthyness of the event it shaped, or also implicity, the man who made their newspaper sales revenue rocket. Undoubtedly, 9/11 grabs the throne for being the most newsworthy issue for the year. But between Osama and Giuliani, admittedly, as unsettling as it seems, Osama deserves the award. He alone, created the act which had the entire world fall off their seats, and adversely created the situation for Giuliani to shine. And Giuliani rose to the ocassion with his trusty team of advisors.

At a time when sales and ad revenues have been going downhill and readers threatening to cancel their subscriptions if Osama dominated the frontpage, Time compromised its principles. Its Chief Editor announced that Giuliani was the man, because they felt that the aftermath of 9/11 was more significant an event that Osama's terrorising act of terrorism. It seemed more concerned with not incurring the public's wrath and reducing revenue more than it otherwise should.

Commercialisation definitely seems to be the order of the day. Values and moral stands have to take a step back. It's perhaps a signal of the turn of the tide, now against the values which we have once stood by firmly and defended aggressively.

kai 2001