I Read the TIME Taylor Swift Person of the Year Piece so You Don't Have to
what we're not talking about when we talk about Taylor Swift
We’ve chosen not to offer paid subscriptions for this project. The short version is: we don’t want monetary support for our work to fund anti-trans and white supremacist newsletters on Substack which is, unfortunately how this platform currently operates. If you want to support our work you can send us a tip here:
Less than three weeks after a fan died at her concert TIME named Taylor Swift 2023’s Person of the Year–a choice so is patently absurd, it almost doesn’t seem worth talking about.
In our online culture–no matter your interests–there’s no escaping Swift. As I’m writing this, on Instagram the hashtag #taylorswift has 21M posts and counting; #swiftie has 3M posts and counting, and Swift herself has 278M followers. Swift’s post announcing the choice featured the cover image for the POTY issue and a caption that read:
Time Magazine: We’d like to name you Person of the Yea-
Me: Can I bring my cat.
As of right now the post has 7.3M likes.
In their piece announcing the choice (not the article interviewing Swift herself), TIME stated:
For building a world of her own that made a place for so many, for spinning her story into a global legend, for bringing joy to a society desperately in need of it, Taylor Swift is TIME’s 2023 Person of the Year.
It’s worth noting that in 2022, a year when Russia invaded Ukraine, the Person of the Year choice was Ukranian President Volodymyr Zelensku and “the spirit of Ukraine;” yet in a year where Palestinan journalists on the ground in Gaza opened the eyes of the world to an ongoing genocide, Swift was chosen over: the Hollywood strikers, Chinese President Xi Jinping, CEO of OpenAI Sam Altman, Trump Prosecutors, Russian President Vladimir Putin, British King Charles III, Chairman of the Federal Reserve Jerome Powell, and Barbie. The people, journalists or “spirit” of Palestine didn’t even make the shortlist.
There is no denying Swift’s massive impact on the culture. The impact of Era’s Tour alone even now has its own Wikipedia page.
But for such a cultural force, with such a huge impact across multiple industries, none of the reporting on Swift seems to treat her that way. Instead, the process of reporting on Swift has become another way Swift herself spins her web of lore. (Taylore, to those in the know).
The interview with TIME was the first print interview Swift had given in four years, and it’s well known in Swiftie circles that she doesn’t give interviews easily–as in she won’t allow herself to be interviewed unless certain topics are agreed to be off limits.1 On Instagram Swift almost acknowledged this–in her traditional fashion. While being celebrated as the most influential person in the world, she also gets to remind us that she is the vulnerable party rather than the one with immense cultural power:
The most glaring issue with Taylor Swift reporting–which is uniquely showcased in the TIME Person of the Year article–is that being a ride or die fan seems to be the single most significant credential for anyone reporting on Swift.
For instance, I feel compelled to let readers know that I actually am a fan of Swift’s music; I’ve been listening to her since I had to upload CDs to my iTunes library and sync them to an iPod with a clicker wheel. I have Red, 1989, Lover and Folklore on vinyl2, and I saw the Era’s tour movie in its AMC run.
None of this matters, because none of what I’m talking about is related to Swift’s artistic body of work, but her cultural and environmental impact. Yet, if you don’t establish you fan credentials you run the risk of Swifties3 coming for you, either for not knowing what you’re talking about, or perhaps for being an alt-right misogynist:
In the episode Taylor Swift x Intimate Publics with Margaret H. Willison on the podcast Material Girls by
, Willison makes sure to note that–despite being a successful culture critic–she doesn’t really have the expected foundation of Taylore that would qualify her as a true Swift expert:“I’ve been on, for example, a bunch of Pop Culture Happy Hour episodes about Taylor, and on one of them I indicated that I was not aware that there was a special significance to Track 5 on all of her albums, and I did get at least one tweet saying how could you possibly have someone who doesn’t know the significance of Track 5 on to speak about Taylor Swift? They’re obviously not qualified.”
In September, Gannett created a new job posting for a position dedicated solely to reporting on Taylor Swift (and one for Beyoncé as well). They said looking for a reporter with“a voice–but not a bias” and hired a self identified “huge Swiftie.”4
There’s plenty of legitimacy to reporting on Taylor Swift. The economic impact of the Eras tour had different cities courting Swift, trying to get her to come to them. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau embarrassingly tweeted (X’d?) Swift: “It’s me, hi. I know places in Canada would love to have you. So, don’t make it another cruel summer. We hope to see you soon.” (Those are all plays on Swift lyrics, if you didn’t clock it.)
So there’s no question Taylor Swift deserves to be talked about, but how we report on Swift matters.
of The Present Age notes a number of things that would be worth diving into: from the economic impact of the Era’s tour, Swift’s history with Spotify, or the massive undertaking and even more shocking industry success of the rerecording and release of her early albums as Taylor’s Versions. But–as Molloy and other music & culture experts note in TPA’s 8 Writers on Taylor Swift and the State of Music Journalism–celebrity journalism is mainly about maintaining access to the celebrity in question. Which isn’t likely to continue if you piss off the celebrity in question. And with Swift in particular, any critical reporting could mean giving up any and all revenue from her massive, loyal audience."Fans flew across the country, stayed in hotels, ate meals out, and splurged on everything from sweatshirts to limited-edition vinyl, with the average Eras attendee reportedly spending nearly $1,300.”
Sam Lansky, Person of the Year 2023: Taylor Swift
This is true of much of celebrity journalism, but as she’s one of the two5 most influential figures in pop culture6, the practice deserves to be questioned a bit. Which brings us to the second most glaring issue with Taylor Swift reporting: we’re only ever reporting on Taylor Swift the person, rather than Taylor Swift the industry.
Like Barbie, Taylor Swift the person is the pretty face of a giant capitalist machine. She made over a billion dollars on the American leg of the Eras tour, she has such a massive carbon footprint that people began to speculate she attended a Jets game just to bury reports of her own private jet usage online7. She had the power to strong-arm Spotify into bending to her will years ago. One Instagram post from her caused a huge surge in American voter registration. She brought more attention to the NFL than any game since the Super Bowl…while they happen to be toying with the idea of international expansion.
Taylor Swift the person has surely experienced being the underdog plenty in her young life; being a child star never comes without exploitation and her masters dispute made public some of the more predatory practices within the music industry. Taylor Swift the person suffered at the hands of sexism as all women do (which Taylor Swift the industry made into a career ethos)–though her privilege as a straight, thin, white woman is never allowed to enter the discussion.
But Taylor Swift the industry is decidedly not an underdog. Taylor Swift the industry has 12 Grammy’s, 10 studio albums, was able to re-record her earlier work and re-release it to an audience waiting eagerly for every new drop, and willing to spend endless money on special edition vinyls. Swift has three movies and eight houses.
Swift as an industry was able to spend over $100M in production cost alone for The Eras Tour, and pay each of the 50 truck drivers who were tasked with preparing and pre-building the sets (yes, two versions of each, one sent out in an advance team ahead of Swift) for the Eras tour a $100,000 bonus. Swift as an industry has a net worth of 1.1 billion dollars.
But Swift as an industry has done such an incredible job creating a relationship with fans who see Swift the person both as their friend, and someone they want to protect. You want to know who wronged her, so you know who to hate. You want to know who her friends are, so you can try to be one of them. You want to tell her you’re proud of her for taking control of her body of work.
“Meaningfully [she’s] a white girl. [I do think] her girlishness has been an essential part of why we let her be messy and unfinished and imperfect.”
, Taylor Swift x Intimate Publics with Margaret H. Willison
Like Barbie, Swift the industry has masterfully used nostalgia and girlishness to frame herself as a hero against all odds. She’s intentionally taking us through the Eras, reminding us of things that were taken from her, and a time when girl power feminism felt radical.
But when we let Swift the person speak for Swift the industry without making the distinction, we get a mess like this (emphasis mine):
“I do not say to her, in our conversation, that it did not always look that way from the outside—that, for example, when Reputation’s lead single “Look What You Made Me Do” reached No. 1 on the charts, or when the album sold 1.3 million albums in the first week, second only to 1989, she did not look like someone whose career had died. She looked like a superstar who was mining her personal experience as successfully as ever. I am tempted to say this. But then I think, Who am I to challenge it, if that’s how she felt? The point is: she felt canceled. She felt as if her career had been taken from her.”
Sam Lansky, Person of the Year 2023: Taylor Swift
My degree is in English and Gender Studies so, granted, I’m not the authority on journalistic practices. But is a reporters job really to relay only what an interviewee is feeling? Or is it their job to investigate that feeling, look to the context surrounding what’s being said and who is saying it, and provide their readers with something more than simple regurgitation?
Personally, Swift felt as though she had been canceled. She even went as far to say she was canceled “within an inch of [her] life and sanity.” But the thing about “canceling” is…it has never actually happened.8 The loudest public opinions of you might shift, writing you off when they were once fans, but that’s nothing new for anyone with fame. The way we can see a constant barrage of stranger’s opinions might make it feel like a new phenomenon, but it’s simply a new medium giving opportunity to very old behavior.
Canceling implies a concrete consequence–a career ended, wealth redistributed, every ounce of social capital gone. This is objectively not what happened to Swift–who is still able to use her moment of being cancelled9 as the foundation of her narrative of personal and professional vindication.
“She felt it was ‘a career death,’ she says. ‘Make no mistake—my career was taken away from me.’”
Sam Lansky, Person of the Year 2023: Taylor Swift
It’s not just that this interview doesn’t offer any information about Swift that the public didn’t already know. It’s not just that Swift requires certain topics to be off the table to even get her to take a seat. It’s that the narrative she has created for herself as a person is in such direct contradiction with Swift as an industry, and yet there’s never any push back when she says blatantly false things.
Swift is hugely influential, and massively wealthy which in our culture translates directly to power. Swift the industry has power and influence and badly misused it in 2023. From publicly dating a racist anti-Semite10, to partnering with the NFL despite their well known reputation for domestic abuse among players that goes unchecked, to allowing the rumor to spread that she pulled the Eras Tour film in Israel in response to the current genocide–while the screening was actually delayed due to technical issues.11 She wrote a new, homophobic12 prologue for her release of 1989 (Taylor’s Version), and depicted being fat as one of her “nightmare scenarios and intrusive thoughts” in the (since changed) music video for her Midnight’s single Anti-Hero.13 Rather than addressing her carbon footprint controversy, she doubled down on climate negligent practices; from the 166+ hours spent crisscrossing the US in her private jet during the North American leg of the Eras tour, to the 16 outfits–several of which had up to four or more variations–worn during the Eras show, to the negligence in terms of audience safety at Swift’s Rio show, to the pyrotechnics used in the show, or the transport for the multiple sets, and on.
There’s no shortage of reporting on Taylor Swift, but there’s a drought of critical analysis of Swift as an industry. What’s the use naming someone as the most influential person of the year without examining where that influence is coming from and what it’s actually doing?
“After I leave Swift’s house, I can’t stop thinking about how perfectly she crafted this story for me.”
Sam Lansky, Person of the Year 2023: Taylor Swift
We’ve chosen not to offer paid subscriptions for this project. The short version is: we don’t want monetary support for our work to fund anti-trans and white supremacist newsletters on Substack which is, unfortunately how this platform currently operates. If you want to support our work you can send us a tip here:
I’m not sure how common this is in interviews, however as a reader it feels a whole lot shadier than a simple “I’m not going to answer that,” which Swift has shown herself to be more than comfortable with.
(Original Version); I believe in an artists right to own their own work, but vinyls are expensive and I had them before her new versions were released. If Ms. Swift didn’t just rake in a billion dollars with the Eras tour I’d maybe be more inclined to replace them.
Online harrassment is huge even within the Swift fandom: “a 2023 report … found that 28% of online accounts dedicated to Swift contribute to harassment, mass reporting, targeted attacks, and doxxing of “Gaylor” accounts” (x)
This hire and what it means for music journalism was explored in piece 8 Writers on Taylor Swift and the State of Music Journalism, on
which I’d highly recommend reading!Beyoncé, obviously.
Put your tinfoil hats away friends! Or at least save them for something better because this is not how SEO works. People looking to find information on her carbon footprint aren’t going to search “Taylor Swift Jets” they’re going to search “Taylor Swift carbon footprint.” [Plus I just Googled “Taylor Swift Jets” and the entire first page (with the exception of 2 links that proposed the conspiracy)…were all links about her private jet usage.]
Future essay topic? Stay tuned.
Being upstaged by known anti-Semite Kanye West, and the continuing drama with his then-wife Kim Kardashian. The incident, which happened in 2009 (and prompted Swift’s “Reputation era”) and takes up about 600 words of the TIME POTY piece.
Its not homophobic because it upset Gaylors, its homophobic because self proclaimed ally Swift was upset at people speculating about the nature of her relationships with the women in her life when she made a conscious point to only present herself in intimate relationships with women.