> Person (previously "Man") of the year has never been a moral judgment. Hitler was "man of the year" in 1936. Well, originally. But now? No, absolutely not. S

> Person (previously "Man") of the year has never been a moral judgment. Hitler was "man of the year" in 1936. Well, originally. But now? No, absolutely not. See recent persons of the year (of the past few decades): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Person_of_the_Year#Persons_of_the_Year http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Person_of_the_Year#Persons... There's a connotation of greatness in the phrase 'person of the year', that's there whether you like it or not, and Time magazine is certainly not going to get itself in rough waters by nominating a controversial figure and then substantiating a pick by the reason you cite -- that it's a person who had the most impact. If that really were true, Guiliani wouldn't have been picked as the POY, Osama would have, Zuck wouldn't have been picked, Assange would have. But all of this aside, what I want to say most is that Time magazine is just a terrible tabloid at this point that's only been getting more terrible with each passing year. It's designed to appeal to the LCD audience, it's filled with FUD full up their necks. See this recent cover for example: http://img.timeinc.net/time/daily/2013/1310/360_cover_1111.jpg http://img.timeinc.net/time/daily/2013/1310/360_cover_1111.j... I really hope we all start ignoring Time soon.