After I finished criticizing the editors of Time for misunderstanding the term "soldier", I found this curious quote in Reuter's caught my attention:
There was little disagreement in Time's newsroom that the U.S.-led war in Iraq was 2003's top story, Time Managing Editor Jim Kelly told Reuters. But he said there was a spirited debate about who would best represent that story as Person of the Year.
So who, exactly, was in the running for the title? The short list was dominated almost exclusively* by names related to the war in Iraq: Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, Paul Bremer, Gen. Tommy Franks, Hans Blix, Kofi Annan, Tony Blair, Jacques Chirac, and Saddam Hussein. (Oddly, the closest similarity to the eventual winner was "U.S. military reservists.")
If you asked the average citizen who "best represents" the Iraq war, they would most likely think of the U.S. military. So why did the staff of Time have such a difficult time coming to that conclusion? One possible explanation is that of the thirty-two members of the "Senior Editorial Staff", not one of them has ever served in the military.**
Think about what this says about our elite media. The most newsworthy story of the year was a war fought by the American military and yet the most influential newsweekly in the country is headed by a group that doesn't have one person who has served in that military.
Not one of the thirty-two members has ever spent a single day in "boot camp", carried a rifle into combat, or stood watch on a ship in the Atlantic Ocean. Not one member of this staff has experienced what the lowliest Army private has known firsthand. Not one editor or senior writer at Time could bring their personal experience to bear on what they all agreed was the most important story of the year.
I'm not questioning their motives. I'm not questioning whether they should have served. And I'm not questioning whether they can do their jobs without such experience. My only question is not for the staff of Time but for us: Why is it that we call these people "the elite."
* The non-war list of contenders consists of: Arnold Schwarzenegger, Osama bin Laden, Rush Limbaugh, and Kobe Bryant.
** This conclusion is drawn from viewing the biographies listed on Time's website. It is quite possible that military service would be too trivial a detail to list in such a bio. But since they include lists of colleges and graduate schools attended, I assume that such service would have been noted.
1
Ity is also very telling that the short list left out the most important figure involved in the war
President George Bush, whom I thought should definitly have been sleected, especially in light of the Libia announcment
2
This is a phenomenon that will be with us for some time. The Baby Boomers are, only in this decade, beginning to take over the reigns of power in a broad variety of organizations throughout our society. Although half of them had to face the draft, the other half, born after 1955, did not. That will have telling consequences over the next decade, and I'm afraid the Time decision, which revealed it's tin ear on matters military, will be only one example of many more to come.
posted on 12.23.2003 8:35 AM3
I understand your point, but who says that someone has to have been in the military to write about the military? People can study and learn things without having first hand experience with it. Sure it would make sense to have some military advisors who review their work, but do you require that people who haven't served in the armed forced stay silent on military issues?
posted on 12.23.2003 9:33 AM4
American,
No, I don't think that a journalist necessarily has to have served in the military to cover military issues. But we are talking about the premier newsweekly in the country. They go out of their way to promote "diversity" when it comes to gender or race. You would think they would promote a bit more diversity in experience and background.
posted on 12.24.2003 12:33 AM5
I agree with Charles. More and more young people are choosing college over the military, especially in these trying times. I retired from the Navy in 2000 and for the last 5 years of my service I saw the quality of the young people that were joining the military. More often than not they would almost instantly decide it wasn't for them and get out at the first opportunity. They also had the attitude of "what's in it for me" rather than "what can I do for my Country."
But I have to say that it appears that when their Country asked for them to get tough those attitudes disappeared. I am very proud of what they have accomplished and are accomplishing as we speak/write. I personally couldn't think of a better "Man of the Year" than our men and women in the military.
Whether or not the editorial staff served in the military is irrelevant. They picked the ONLY logical and possible choice from this year's possible choices and I'm glad they did.
posted on 12.24.2003 4:39 AM