It’s not a mistake. The person of the year is not by definition a good person, but someone who’s had a lot of influence during the year, for better or for worse.
You have to admit the title “Person of the Year” does carry with it a certain gravitas, just by virtue of the way those words are used in every other instance. Game of the Year, Movie of the Year, etc are all superlatives - regardless of whether they can hide behind the plausible deniability of their own definition.
They have nothing to lose by not putting a criminal oligarch on the front cover. Bet it made Time a lot of money though so, ya know, that’s what matters.
This similar to how Rogan justifies platforming Nazis and conspiracy nuts. And anyway, it’s not really even “news”; it’s just a long opinion piece with facts sprinkled in.
And remember, this is the same magazine that once had Hitler as person of the year. Mistakes do happen.
It’s not a mistake. The person of the year is not by definition a good person, but someone who’s had a lot of influence during the year, for better or for worse.
Fair enough.
It’s okay if you don’t know what it means to make time’s person of the year.
Just don’t pretend like that level of nuance is something you do grasp.
You have to admit the title “Person of the Year” does carry with it a certain gravitas, just by virtue of the way those words are used in every other instance. Game of the Year, Movie of the Year, etc are all superlatives - regardless of whether they can hide behind the plausible deniability of their own definition.
They have nothing to lose by not putting a criminal oligarch on the front cover. Bet it made Time a lot of money though so, ya know, that’s what matters.
This similar to how Rogan justifies platforming Nazis and conspiracy nuts. And anyway, it’s not really even “news”; it’s just a long opinion piece with facts sprinkled in.