TIMES person of the year. In 2010 it was given to the ‘Facebook’ creator and the role model of the movie ‘the Social Network’, Mark Zuckerberg. Before him, it was given to various people like the President of the United States such as Barak Obama, Franklin D. Roosevelt or scientists like Einstein. People mostly think that this award is given to a person who has donated to the development of humanity or the society. But it is not true. In fact, this award is given to an individual or group of individuals who have had the biggest effect on the year’s news, since it was even given to Stalin and Hitler.
In 2010, there was a controversy over the awarding the title of Person on the Year, since there were two candidates, Mark Zuckerberg and the other person was Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks is a website that provides important news and information to public. They are a non-profit organization and had been providing information about ethical, historical or other important facts that are not open to public. Julian Assange, the other candidate for the TIMES person of the year, was awarded the TIMES reader’s choice of person of the year and Zuckerberg was awarded the title.
This award is stupid from its origin. It was created in 1927, to write contemplating stories that is newsworthy for slow news week. In short, it was created because there was no interesting news that would attract reader’s attentions. It was a supplement for a week that would not have issues that people will get drawn to. Another fact is that it was poorly chosen from the first Person of the Year. The first TIMES Person of the year was awarded to Charles Lindbergh, who made a historic trans-Atlantic flight. He could have been an issue maker of the year at the time, but can it be said that he was the best choice? It was awarded to him, because the TIMES magazine had missed the chance to publish him on the front cover. The TIMES magazine had created it, not on the good purpose of looking back one year, but they were embarrassed and humiliated for not publishing about Lindbergh. There could have been a person in 1927 that had created more issue rather than Lindbergh.
This award is also based on the magazines opinion not the readers. As in 2010 Person of the Years choice, there has been a lot of controversy over it. Even thou Assange had received 20 times more popular vote than Zuckerberg and took the first place in popular vote, the honor was given to Zuckerberg who was tenth in the popular vote. Assange had average rating of 92 compared to Zuckerberg’s rating of 52. However, the title of TIMES Person of the Year was given to Zuckerberg while Assange was just given the title of Reader’s Choice of TIMES Person of the year. According to the TIMES, they say that the choice is based on the magazines opinion of who had created a big issue rather than the voting of the subscribers. Even thou, when most people thought that Assange was the biggest issue maker, TIMES thought that Zuckerberg was the one who created headlines.
The most important thing is that it differs from every person to person, who they thought was the biggest issue maker of the year. For instance Zuckerberg couldn’t be the biggest issue maker in every country. For instance, in some countries like Liberia or Egypt, Zuckerberg won’t possibly be the biggest issue. People’s interests are different. Some are more interested in politics and can think that some policy was the biggest issue of the year. Some are more interested in the field of science or mechanics and think that the scientist or some engineers should be the man of the year. There might be even some people who think that they are the biggest issue! The point here is that biggest issue maker differs from person to person. In fact, in KMLA I think that the biggest issue maker was not Zuckerberg and his Facebook but Mr. Jeon Kwang Jin.
I think that the TIMES Person of the Year is not worthy as most people think it is. Its origin is somewhat very stupid, because it was a material to publish for slow news week. Also, it does not represent what the most people think since the publishers chose who they think made the most headlines of the news. To add, it cannot represent fully who millions of people think was the biggest issue maker of the year.
TIME(')S (")Person of the Year("). In 2010 it was given to the Facebook creator and (DELETE the role model) CENTRAL FIGURE of the movie "THE Social Network," Mark Zuckerberg. Before him, it was given to various (DELETE like) AMERICAN PRESIDENTS, SUCH AS Barak Obama AND Franklin D. Roosevelt. IT HAS ALSO BEEN GIVEN TO groundbreaking scientists(,) SUCH AS Einstein AND DAVID HO. People mostly (DELETE think) ASSUME that this award is given to a person who has donated to the development of humanity or (DELETE) society. HOWEVER, (DELETE But) THIS IS not ALWAYS true. In fact, this TITLE, OFTEN CALLED AN "AWARD," is given to an individual or group (DELETE of individuals) who have had the biggest effect on the year’s news(.) CASE IN POINT, it was even given to Stalin and Hitler.
답글삭제(Good intro. For better flow and rhythm, I added David Ho as a scientist to maintain parallel structure in your list of examples.)
In 2010, there was a controversy over (DELETE the) awarding the title (DELETE of Person on the Year), since there were two candidates, Mark Zuckerberg and (DELETE the other person was) Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks.
(COMBINE the following two sentences into one so it's not repetitive:
WikiLeaks is a website that provides important news and information to THE public. They are a non-profit organization and had been providing information about ethical, historical or other important facts that are not open to public.
Julian Assange, (DELETE the other candidate for the TIMES person of the year - THE READER KNOWS BY NOW), was awarded the TIMES reader’s choice of person of the year and Zuckerberg was awarded the title.
(ABOVE statement is a bit redundant and poorly incorporated. Seems random and disconnected.)
This award is stupid from its origin. It was created in 1927, to write contemplating stories that ARE newsworthy DURING A slow news week. In short, it was created because there was no interesting news that would attract reader’s attentions. It was a supplement for a week that would not have issues that
people WOULD BE drawn to. Another fact is that it was poorly chosen from the first Person of the Year. The first TIMES Person of the year was awarded to Charles Lindbergh, who made a historic trans-Atlantic flight. He could have been an issue maker of the year at the time, but can it be said that he was the best choice? It was awarded to him, because the TIMES magazine had missed the chance to publish him on the front cover. The TIMES magazine had created it, not on the good purpose of looking back one year, but they were embarrassed and humiliated for not publishing about Lindbergh. There could have been a person in 1927 that had created more issue rather than Lindbergh.
답글삭제(FIRST sentence in the above paragraph should be softer, and the general tone of the argument is flat/poorly presented. You make some very big generalized claims/accusations that don't stand up. Avoid claims you can't support.)
This award is also based on the magazines opinion(,) not the readers. As in 2010'S Person of the Year choice, there has been a lot of controversy over it. Even THOUGH Assange had received 20 times more THE popular vote than Zuckerberg(,) and took the first place in THE popular vote, the honor was given to Zuckerberg who was RANKED tenth (DELETE in the popular vote). Assange had AN average rating of 92 compared to Zuckerberg’s rating of 52. However, the title of TIMES Person of the Year was given to Zuckerberg while Assange was just given the title of Reader’s Choice of TIMES Person of the year. According to the TIMES, they say that the choice is based on the magazines opinion of who had created a big issue rather than the voting of the subscribers. Even THOUGH, when most people thought that Assange was the biggest issue maker, TIMES thought that Zuckerberg was the one who created headlines.
(ABOVE paragraph has a tone that comes off as a factual summary, where you claim to know what TIME Magazine "thought." Avoid this kind of discourse that doesn't actively or engagingly further the discussion.)
The most important thing is that it differs from every person to person, who they thought was the biggest issue maker of the year. For instance(,) Zuckerberg couldn’t be the biggest issue maker in every country. (DELETE For instance,) In some countries like Liberia or Egypt, FOR EXAMPLE, Zuckerberg LIKELY won’t (DELETE possibly be the biggest) HAVE MUCH OF AN IMPACT (DELETE issue). People’s interests are different. Some are more interested in politics and can think that some policy was the biggest issue of the year. Some are more interested in the field of science or mechanics and think that the scientist or some engineers should be the man of the year. There might be even some people who think that they are the biggest issue! The point here is that THE biggest issue maker differs from person to person. In fact, in KMLA(,) I think that the biggest issue maker was not Zuckerberg and his Facebook(,) but Mr. Jeon Kwang Jin.
(Okay, so who is Jeon Kwang Jin? If you suggest something, you have to elaborate.)
I think that (DELETE the) TIME'S Person of the Year is not worthy as most people think it is. Its origin is somewhat (DELETE very) stupid, because it was (DELETE a) material to publish for A slow news week. Also, it does not represent what (DELETE the) most people think since the publishers chose who they think made the most headlines IN the news. To add, it cannot represent fully who millions of people think was the biggest issue maker of the year.
I can respect your opinion, and you do make some good points. However, the main point/opinion of the essay should not come in the third paragraph. Yes - there is a need for setup and explanation, but still - the gist comes late.
답글삭제In terms of tone, be careful of criticisms that are too harsh. "Stupid" might be too much. We can think it privately, but be more "euphemistic" in an essay. If you do take this approach, find better arguments and counter examples that aren't overly general or assuming. As a first draft this is okay, but a second draft would need more meat in the sandwich.