Mainstream media today will follow whatever brings them ratings and profit. They are just like big corporations and will stretch the truth if it benefits them. They can't be the beneficiary of capitalism, usually through government help giving them an incentive to be friendly to them, and still be non-partial truth reporters. How many mainstream stations are giving much coverage to what's happening in Yemen with the help of the U.S. government? When the media is talking mostly about Stormy Daniels, how can you not realize there is a problem? Here are just a couple of articles talking about how the U.S. government and the mainstream media have a nice cozy relationship: [fair.org] [fair.org]

No it mean you can't trust the mainstram media.

Here watch this:

[motherjones.com]

Scary they did that

They are hoping that after comfirming that Yes, hitler was named man of th eyear, they will read no further and see the explanation that "Man of the Year" denotes the most influential peson, but the influence is not always a positive influence, but just influentual. And will just assume the post is correct.

Stalin was never named man of the year, even. Or at least I cant' find any confirmation of it.

So, year, this post is for the intellectually lazy, who will either just accept it, or only read so far to confirm hirlet was named, but not the explanation of what actually qualifies a person for "Man of the Year."

Time chooses its man of the year based on who gets the most media attention. It's neither negative nor positive recognition; it's just acknowledgement that the person had a lot of influence.

As far as sharing crap like this that attack the media: that's doing a tremendous disservice to legitimate journalism and playing into the hands of the crackpots and frauds who spread propaganda and lies. This crap is straight out of the playbooks of the idots at Fox and Infowars.

I never did. question everything

The man of the year is a man who has had the greatest influence on world events for the past year. It has nothing to do with the man being a "good man" or a "bad man." Surely Adolph Hitler and Joseph Stalin had their 15 minutes on the world stage where they were making the news and influencing world events. The fact that they were "bad men" does not detract from the fact that they were news makers.

It doesn't mean they were fooled. It's misleading. Times person of the year is someone who has had the biggest impact or influence. Sometimes it's heroes, sometimes it's villians.

In the cast of Hitler, businessmen like Henry Ford were okay with him, many saw the money to be made and ignored the evil. Many thought stalin had the right idea for helping the masses and all of society, an ideology to encommpass the tribal mentality with the modern machines. The world soon learned of the evil both these men were capable of.
Hopefully there are enough progressives and thinking reasoning people to shout louder than the like of sean hannity, fox media whores and some of the right talk radio cranks.
I think the comparison is apt because there is such a lopsided split between the haves and the have nots.

Don't mistake what Time was doing. They chose people because of their newsworthiness--positive or negative. The choices were not an endorsement of policies.

I don’t find “alternate” media any more reliable. There are a lot of kooks out there. Hopefully they will choke out on GMO chemtrail vaccines that mind control the population of their nuts and I won’t have to listen to their nonsense anymore. Google that on Snopes.

It could also mean that Time magazine's "Man of the Year" was awarded for the most influential person, even if that person's influence was negative rather than positive.

Being "Man of the Year" doesn't always mean that someone earned the distinction for their good acts. It's not necessarily always recognition that one is a good person.
Some people will try to twist anything to support their agenda.