4 ms·
No, it's an overtly positive promotion of the winner for the year; hence, Gandhi 1930, Churchill 1940, Eisenhower 44 , George H Bush in 04 etc..
by aSimplePlanner 5y ago
No, it's an overtly positive promotion of the winner for the year; hence, Gandhi 1930, Churchill 1940, Eisenhower 44 , George H Bush in 04 etc..
- Mediterraneo10 5y agoNo, as Time magazine itself puts it: it is a person that "for better or worse [my emphasis added], has most influenced events in the preceding year."
- aSimplePlanner 5y agoYou're clutching at straws by denying my assertion above. Wiki: Controversial choices: Despite the magazine's frequent statements to the contrary, the designation is often regarded as an honor, and spoken of as an award or prize, simply based on many previous selections of admirable people.[9]
- Mediterraneo10 5y agoIndeed, as your wiki citation notes, “Despite the magazine's frequent statements to the contrary...”, so such interpretations as your own are mistaken.
- aSimplePlanner 5y agoPlease keep contradicting me as it just exposes your ignorance.
- dukeyukey 5y agoIn 1936 it was Wallis Simpson, who's marriage to King Edward VIII caused a constitutional crisis in the British Empire and a subsequent abdication, and in 1939 it was Stalin. So unless Time Magazine is a Monarchist Nazi Communist mag, it's probably not a promotional award.
- aSimplePlanner 5y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Luce https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Luce
- dukeyukey 5y agoI'm not sure what you mean? It says he was an ardent anti-communist, and still had Stalin as Person of the Year twice.