[Stargazer]

How significant is it that TIME Magazine's "Person of the Year" for 2002 is/are actually 3 female whistleblowers (1 governmental, 2 corporate)?

Cynthia Cooper, Coleen Rowley and Sherron Watkins

They took huge professional and personal risks to blow the whistle on what went wrong at WorldCom, Enron and the FBI—and in so doing helped remind us what American courage and American values are all about.

We've seen stories here from some of our own Allnurses colleagues about the high price they paid for being whistleblowers at their own place of employment. How, if at all, do you think that this will impact the willingness of nurses to speak up, and about corporate healthcare's attitude or response to actual or threatened exposure?

http://www.time.com/time/personofthe.../poyintro.html

[oramar]

I highly approved of Time's choice and the message they are sending. However, I was disappointed with the response of AOL readers to it. AOL had a poll and 96% of the respondents said they did not like Time's choice. What was the reason for that I wonder. Just a bunch of people being negative just for the sake of negativity? Or perhaps people don't like snitches? Or maybe George Bush fans thinking he should have been picked?

[ITSJUSTMEZOE]

I applaude anyone may they be male or female for trying to correct something that is notably wrong where they work. Its not by any means glamorous, and what they went through to get were they are now is a long and tretious road to go. Thats why most just sit back and eat it and dont do anything about it. The day that Time does and article on the Medical whistleblowers I will actually buy the magazine and not just read it in the Dentists office.
Zoe

[NMAguiar]

I totally applaud the choice. With the healthcare crisis looming, a few HMO employees could take a lesson for these three brave women.

But, I believe the choice was made on the basis of political desires to light a flame under the corporate responsibility issue. Nancy Pelosi and others are trying desparately to find direction.

[sanakruz]

NM_THIS HAS WHAT TO DO WITH NANCY PELOSI????
AND TAKE THAT BAG OFF YOUR HEAD!!!!

[Stargazer]

Originally posted by oramar
I highly approved of Time's choice and the message they are sending. However, I was disappointed with the response of AOL readers to it. AOL had a poll and 96% of the respondents said they did not like Time's choice. What was the reason for that I wonder. Just a bunch of people being negative just for the sake of negativity? Or perhaps people don't like snitches? Or maybe George Bush fans thinking he should have been picked?

It's even odder when you look at TIME's own polling results. 67% of respondents didn't agree with the choice and fewer than 2% did. However, there were only 2 choices on the poll--yes or no. So what happened to the other 31%? Bizarre.

And I don't understand what Nancy Pelosi has to do with TIME Magazine's choice either.

[NMAguiar]

But, I believe the choice was made on the basis of political desires to light a flame under the corporate responsibility issue. Nancy Pelosi and others are trying desparately to find direction.

Sorry, I guess I should have been more clear. Then again, I sometimes let my mind wonder as I type leading to comments which are off the main subject of the thread. Sorry.

After agreeing with the choice, I realized it fell right into Time magazine's usual left-leaning political agenda. Go back through their history of selections for people of the year and you'll notice both a liberal bias and tendency to chose those that will cause a stir -- except last year with Guliani, an unavoidable choice. I was rather surprised Osama Bin Laden wasn't selected; it was Ayatolla Khomeni during the Iran hostage situation in the '70s.

Just my two cents. Pelosi has been pushing the corporate responsibility issue, an issue that fizzled for the democrats during the past election. I found myself pondering if Time was helping resurrect a beaten horse.

Trust me that I've met Nancy Pelosi. I've heard her speak. She's a radical babe; a great choice for the Democrats at this juncture.

Enough politics. I return you to your regularly scheduled thread.

[NMAguiar]

I also applaud the public's savy in beginning to analyze more deeply these polls we are constantly bombarded with. It's about time the media was sent a message that their target audiences aren't as stupid as they like to believe.

How can any poll in which a third of respondents are not accounted for be considered valid?

Kinda makes you wonder if they're not trying to twist it to support a story huh?

[Stargazer]

Well, except that the numbers as given emphatically do NOT support the story. Acording to the numbers given, the vast majority of people responding don't agree with TIME's choice.

Too bad. Otherwise, you might've had the beginnings of a nice little conspiracy theory there.