US President elect Donald Trump is Time magazine’s Person of the Year, as all manner of expected media reactions follow.
Here, for example, is what the BBC says: “In being named Time’s Person of the Year for 2016, Mr Trump joins an illustrious list of the great and the not-always-so-good.”
Further, the worldwide broadcaster laments: It is perhaps not a surprise he was chosen – Time traditionally picks the president-elect, and it has been more than two decades since the last exception was made.”
But Time, in a rejoinder, defended the obvious controversial choice in an editorial which has also been taken apart by Trump’s detractors:
“This is the 90th time we have named the person who had the greatest influence, for better or worse, on the events of the year. So which is it this year: Better or worse?”
The paper then goes on to say that to those who believe his election to the presidency is all for the better, Trump’s victory represents a long-overdue rebuke to an entrenched and arrogant governing class; for those who see it as for the worse, the destruction extends to cherished norms of civility and discourse, a politics poisoned by vile streams of racism, sexism, nativism.
“To his believers, he delivers change—broad, deep, historic change, not modest measures doled out in Dixie cups; to his detractors, he inspires fear both for what he may do and what may be done in his name.”
And as for Hillary Clinton who came in second from the shortlist that includes Russian President Vladimir Putin, Time is rather straightforward on why she didn’t make it to the presidency in the first place.
“It turned out to be a failing strategy when Hillary Clinton, who loves policy solutions and believes in them, tried to make this race a character test, a referendum on Trump.”
In any case, “Why would we have imagined that our national conversation would simply go on as before, same people, same promises, same patterns?”, poses the paper.
BY MOSES OMUSOLO