TIME's odd choice for "Person of the Year"

TIME's 2020 "Person of the Year"

by George J. Dance

In one respect, TIME magazine's choice of Person of the Year was unsurprising. Back in 1932, when the title was still "Man of the Year," TIME's choice was Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the first Democrat to be elected POTUS in the magazine's history. Since then the editors have automatically awarded it to every Democratic president – Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama – but one upon his election. (The exception was John Kennedy, who won the cover the following year.) 

In fairness, TIME's motives have not been merely partisan. It gave the honor and the cover to Ronald Reagan on his election as well. It gave every GOP president after Roosevelt the same honor and cover at least once in his term. And since 1999, when the title was changed to "Person of the Year," the magazine has bestowed it on every incoming president, Democrat or Republican alike. This recurring outcome (one cannot even call it a choice) reflected a widespread consensus that, come what may, the U.S. presidential election was the most important story of the year; the one that "affected the news or our lives the most, for better or worse," as the magazine puts it. 

So it was no surprise that TIME's choice for 2020 Person of the Year was Joe Biden. Biden won the presidential election, and Biden was a Democrat; to TIME, what else would matter? Still, to many readers besides myself, this year's choice must have seemed odd.

For one thing, while Biden appeared on the shortlist by himself, he ended up having to split the award with his running mate, Kamala Harris. That unprecedented decision wins points for diversity – balancing off the old white guy with a younger, racially mixed woman – but loses points for grammar. How are Biden and Harris collectively a "person"? Why not call them "People of the Year"? Or, if more specificity is required, "Persons of the Year"? 

It is not as if TIME had never heard of plural pronouns; when the editors gave George H.W. Bush a cover, after all, they dubbed him "Men of the Year ". To me, it looks most like a case of sloppy editing: TIME's editors made a last-minute decision to include Harris, for the sake of the "Movement for Racial Justice" (another candidate on TIME's "Person of the Year" shortlist), but none of them thought to change that word of the headline. 

For another thing, the U.S. presidential election was clearly not the story that affected the news or our lives most in 2020. By any margin, that belonged to the coronavirus pandemic and the worldwide human response to it. Why did the coronavirus not make the cover, or even the shortlist? Sure, a virus is not a person, but TIME has bestowed the cover on non-humans before. In 1982, it was given to "The Computer." In 1988, president-elect Bush was passed over for "The Endangered Earth," which won as "Planet of the Year." 

If "Virus of the Year" would have been too much in bad taste, there were more popular alternatives available. Why not the front-line health-care workers who have been hailed since March as the undisputed heroes of 2020? (TIME did put "Frontline Health Care Workers and Dr. Anthony Fauci" together on its shortlist.) Or the scientists and business executives who brought us vaccines in record time? Or, since we're including "for worse," the people responsible for pushing the world into lockdown: a far more newsworthy event, and one with longer-term ramifications, than the coronavirus pandemic itself?   

Finally, TIME's choice appeared odd (to me, at least) because of the expectation that the "Person of the Year" must have done something notable to deserve the honor. Yet neither half of TIME's person did anything of note in 2020. Harris's primary campaign was a disaster, which led to her withdrawal amid general speculation that her political career was finished. So was Biden's campaign in the early stages, and his eventual victory in the primaries was almost entirely due to Jim Clyburn, not to anything Biden did. 

Even after clinching the nomination, Biden hardly campaigned, hunkering down in his basement to emerge only with the odd policy pronouncement – from a nationwide lockdown in March to a nationwide facemask mandate in September – that often turned out to be unconstitutional. For the most part, Biden was simply AWOL. In his absence, the Democratic campaign was taken up by the usual media suspects – the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, NBC and MSNBC, et al – who successfully framed the election as a referendum on Donald Trump. The presidential campaign became a series of exchanges between Trump and a rotating host of surrogate opposition figures, from Andrew Cuomo to Anthony Fauci. 

When Biden finally had to surface, in the election debates, Trump clearly had the best of him; but by then not many Americans cared. The only choice that mattered by that point was Trump or not-Trump; Biden himself (that is, Biden as anything but "not-Trump") was irrelevant. 

My conclusion, from this odd choice, is that TIME magazine (and with it a good portion of the American mainstream media) is sadly unaware of what really most affects the news and our lives.

Reports of Sweden's deaths highly exaggerated

by George J. Dance 

As the governments of Europe began reimposing lockdowns this week, the pro-lockdown media have been reminding us what happens to bad governments that fail to shut down their societies; the favorite cautionary tale, as always, being that of Sweden. "The Swedish COVID-19 Response Is a Disaster," Time magazine headlined October 14. On October 19, CBC Radio's "As It Happens" news show featured a "Swedish virologist [who] says her country's COVID-19 strategy has failed, but nobody will admit it." "As White House eyes 'herd immunity,' Sweden's no-mask approach is failing to contain COVID-19," Yahoo News chimed in on October 20, the same day a Washington Post headline reminded us that Sweden may have saved its economy, "But too many people have died."  

The story those sources tell is grim. "Sweden and the U.S.," Time declares, "are the only countries with high overall mortality rates that failed to rapidly reduce those numbers as the pandemic progressed." The Post warns that "deaths fell to low levels in August and early September but are now rising again." CBC tells us the Swedish health authority has been forced by the death toll to abandon its voluntary approach, and now "allows regions to institute local lockdowns 8 months into the pandemic" (although the story actually clarifies that these new local measures are not lockdowns: "there will be no legal or financial consequences for non-compliance"). Yahoo News quotes a "group of Swedish health and science researchers and professionals, calling itself Vetenskapsforum (Science Forum) COVID-19," as claiming: "Sweden is actually today among the highest countries in the world when it comes to deaths per capita from COVID-19." Scary claims indeed; but do the numbers back them up? 

Time reports (and CBC repeats) that "As of Oct. 13, Sweden’s per capita death rate is 58.4 per 100,000 people, according to Johns Hopkins University data, 12th highest in the world (not including tiny Andorra and San Marino)." But that is not exactly news in October; we already knew six months ago that Stockholm (like Milan, London, New York, and Montreal) would experience high deaths. All five cities, being international air hubs, were hit hard at the outset, and their seniors were not adequately protected at the time. In addition (unlike the other four), Sweden did not lock down, which scientists using Neil Ferguson's Imperial death model confidently predicted would lead to "a median mortality of 96,000 (95% CI 52,000 to 183,000)" dead Swedes by June.  

Sweden's actual COVID death toll by June - more than 5,000 - was tragically high. But things have changed there since. The virus is still active: as per Worldometer's dashboard, there were 58,000 total cases of COVID in Sweden by the end of spring (June 20), and 106,000 four months later (October 19). In the same four months, though, there have been only 618 deaths with COVID, an average of 5 per day. So what is the evidence that the health authority "failed to rapidly reduce those [mortality] numbers?"

Time's evidence consists of "a study published Oct. 12 in the Journal of the American Medical Association, which pointed out that, of the countries the researchers investigated, Sweden and the U.S. essentially make up a category of two: they are the only countries with high overall mortality rates that failed to rapidly reduce those numbers as the pandemic progressed." Time illustrates that claim with a chart (which repeats the claim, but without the 'rapidly' qualification): 

While the JAMA article and Time chart may be new, the data presented is old (perhaps due to the time needed for peer review) and outdated; the numbers go up just partly into September. I decided to look at the complete data, past and present, for myself. I used Worldometers' coronavirus dashboard for Sweden for the death total on the last day of each month, and then used simple subtraction to calculate the mortality for each month. Finally I divided each monthly total by 10.099 to calculate the month's mortality rate per million. 

As I hope my table shows, Sweden has in fact consistently and significantly lowered the mortality rate with COVID in every month of the pandemic since April (ultimately by 98%,). The authors of the JAMA article may have concluded otherwise, but as there is no discussion of Sweden in their study, that appears to be merely Time's spin on the results. In any case, that conclusion – that Sweden experienced a "failure to reduce coronavirus mortality rates as the pandemic progressed" – is falsified by the actual numbers.     

Admittedly, my table goes up only to the end of September; so it does not address the Post's October 20 claim that "deaths are now rising" or Science Forum COVID-19's finding (reported the same day) that "Sweden is actually today among the highest countries in the world when it comes to deaths per capita from COVID-19." So, what of those claims? 

Data for October is not complete, so the mortality rate for the month cannot be calculated; but it is still possible to look at Worldometers' daily averages. On September 30, the seven-day average of daily deaths with COVID in Sweden was 2 (two). On October 20 (the "today" when both claims appeared), the seven-day average was 2 (two). Average daily deaths had not risen by October 20, and they were certainly not among the highest in the world. I rate both those claims as simply false. 

Sources (accessed Oct. 21, 2020)

Jasmine M Gardner, Lander Willem, Wouter van der Wijngaart, Shina Caroline Lynn Kamerlin, Nele Brusselaers, & Peter Kasson, "Intervention strategies against COVID-19 and their estimated impact on Swedish healthcare capacity," medrxiv, April 11, 2020.  doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.11.20062133

Kelly Bjorklund & Andrew Ewing, "The Swedish COVID-19 Response Is a Disaster. It Shouldn’t Be a Model for the Rest of the World," Time, October 14, 2020. https://time.com/5899432/sweden-coronovirus-disaster/

"Swedish virologist says her country's COVID-19 strategy has failed, but nobody will admit it," As It Happens, CBC Radio, October 19, 2020. 

Melissa Rossi, "As White House eyes 'herd immunity,' Sweden's no-mask approach is failing to contain COVID-19," Yahoo News, October 20, 2020. 

Lars Comfors, "We saved our economy in Sweden. But too many people died," Washington Post, October 20, 2020. 

Kochs commit $500 million to buying Time Inc.

Koch Brothers Said to Back Time Inc. Deal Talks With Meredith | CNBC - Sydney Ember and Andrew Ross Sorkin, New York Times:

November 16, 2017 - "Time Inc. is said to be in talks to sell itself to the Meredith Corporation, in a deal backed by Charles G. and David H. Koch, the billionaire brothers known for supporting conservative causes.

"Talks between Time Inc., the publisher of Time and People, and Meredith, the publisher of Family Circle and Better Homes and Gardens, fizzled this year. The new round of negotiations, motivated by the surprise entry of the Kochs, could lead to a quick deal, according to people involved in the discussions.

"The Kochs have tentatively agreed to back Meredith's offer with an equity injection of more than $500 million, the people with knowledge of the talks said. A spokesman for the brothers' business, Koch Industries, declined to comment on Wednesday. Time Inc. also declined to comment....

"Although it is unclear whether the proposed deal will reach fruition, both sides hope to move quickly enough to be able to announce a transaction soon after Thanksgiving.....

"An obstacle that stalled negotiations earlier this year was Meredith's inability to secure sufficient financing from banks. With the addition of the Kochs, with their deep pockets and apparent desire to make themselves players on the media landscape, that problem could vanish.

"It is not clear how much influence — if any — the Kochs would have on a Meredith-owned Time Inc. if the deal were to go through....

"The latest talks between Meredith and Time Inc. show the Koch brothers' willingness to give their media ambitions another shot after they explored purchasing the Tribune Company in 2013.

"Koch Industries ... is the second-largest privately operated company in the United States ... with annual sales revenue of more than $100 billion. "Charles and David Koch have made hefty donations to various civic and arts organizations, including Lincoln Center, the American Museum of Natural History and the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Longtime libertarians, they are also prominent backers of conservative causes and candidates. In 1979, David Koch ran as the vice-presidential candidate on the 1980 Libertarian ticket (with Ed Clark at the top of the ticket).

"The brothers have continued to influence politics through a Koch-funded nonprofit conservative advocacy group founded in 2004, Americans for Prosperity. In the run-up to the 2016 presidential election, the group spent more than $720 million.".

Read more: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/16/koch-brothers-said-to-back-time-inc-deal-talks-with-meredith.html

Libertarianism on verge of political breakout: TIME

Libertarianism Is on the Verge of a Political Breakout | TIME - David Boaz:

February 5, 2015 - "Rand Paul’s leadership in the Senate – on the budget, regulation, privacy, criminal justice, and foreign policy – and his likely presidential campaign are generating new attention for libertarian ideas.

"'Libertarianism is hot,' headlined the Washington Post in 2013. From an almost-forgotten part of American political culture, libertarianism has grown into a respected and much-discussed political faction and a compelling set of ideas that challenge the conventional wisdom. Tens of millions of Americans are fiscally conservative, socially tolerant, and skeptical of American military intervention.

"The growth of the libertarian movement is a product of two factors: the spread of libertarian ideas and sentiments, and the expansion of government during the Bush and Obama administrations, particularly the civil liberties abuses after 9/11 and the bailouts and out-of-control spending after the financial crisis. As one journalist noted in 2009, 'The Obama administration brought with it ambitions of a resurgence of FDR and LBJ’s active-state liberalism. And with it, Obama has revived the enduring American challenge to the state.'

"That libertarian revival manifested itself in several ways. Sales of books like Atlas Shrugged and The Road to Serfdom soared. 'Tea party' rallies against taxes, debt, bailouts, and Obamacare drew a million or more people to hundreds of protests. 'Crony capitalism' became a target for people across the political spectrum. Marijuana legalization and marriage equality made rapid progress. More people than ever told Gallup in 2013 that the federal government has too much power."

Read more: http://time.com/3695448/rand-paul-libertarianism-political-breakout/
'via Blog this'

Time: Paul is 'most interesting man in politics'

Kentucky's Rand Paul on TIME cover as "the most interesting man in politics" - James R. Carroll, Louisville Courier-Journal:

October 17, 2014 - "After he was elected to the Senate in 2010, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul shared a TIME magazine cover with some other tea-party members of Congress.

"Then in 2013, Paul was one of the '100 most influential people' to share alternating TIME covers.

"Now, he's back on TIME again, and he's all by himself, a measure of how the Republican lawmaker has emerged as – well, the title of the story says it all: 'The Most Interesting Man in Politics.'

"Paul, of course, is a potential 2016 GOP presidential contender, and polls show him leading or near the top of his party's field of would-be candidates.

The senator has admitted he is considering a run, but won't make a decision until early next year....

"The accompanying story, by Michael Scherer, is titled 'The Reinventions of Rand Paul. Can He Fix What Ails the GOP?'.... Scherer details Paul's 'radical ambition,' saying that the senator is offering himself as 'a visionary determined to reinvent the conservative Republican story line.'

"Paul's unconventional positions against limiting ballot access and restoring rights to nonviolent felons are separating him from his potential GOP competitors, the story notes."

Read more: http://www.courier-journal.com/story/politics-blog/2014/10/16/kentuckys-rand-paul-on-time-cover-as-the-most-interesting-man-in-politics/17354845/
'via Blog this'