Putin as 2007 Man of the Year? Indefensible!

I think that Time's choice is not entirely indefensible in principle, but it is as a choice for this year. The choice is supposed to represent the person who's made the most impact this year. Putin has done absolutely nothing this year to distinguish himself as a leader (besides be a prig at the G8). Maybe next year, if he hands over the reigns of power smoothly and Russia's recovery continues, then maybe he'd be deserving. But the award is supposed to be about the most impactful person of 2007, and the longer you stretch out the analysis of Putin's reign to support the choice, the less impressive the evidence for this year becomes.

That being said, I think the reason he was chosen is that the Times decision was more superficial than the article makes it appear. For starters, 2005's selection was "you" (pandering) and 2006's was philanthropists (ooh, tough one). To the mass-market audience that reads Time, selecting Gore would've been too similar a theme to 2006's do-gooder winners. Nevermind the fact he made an Oscar-winning documentary about temperature and also won the Nobel prize - that's sooo, like, summertime. Hello! Nobody thinks about melting ice caps in wintertime - it's too cold!

Also, in choosing two positive groups, Time felt it was, well, time for something new, something a bit racy, something that would make its readers feel politically aware ("boy, I've been hearing a lot of things, you know, here and there about Russia recently, but I never knew how big the changes inside really were!") and, at the same time, appeal to the readers who were tired of all the easily-justified choices. Because Putin's Russian has been in the press a lot this year (not as much in the US, but enough to leave that faint impression in people's minds), it was the simplest calculated, just-controversial-enough, choice.