12-11-2013, 03:05 PM
TIME's criteria isn't meant to be "the best or most admirable person of the year". It's defined as the person who made the biggest mark on the world and/or history - in their opinions - good, bad, or open to interpretation.
I don't think anybody in the West thought Ayatollah Khomeini (Man of the Year in 1979) was a great guy, for example. But, it was undeniable that he'd made a mark on history and international relations that year; he was all over the global media - mostly in a negative light here in the US.
TIME caught a ton of shit for giving Khomeini the title though, so they seem to stick with playing it safe.
I remember reading in 2001 that Osama Bin Laden was the top contender according to the criteria. He certainly made a huge mark on the world. But, it would have offended people who only want to think of good guys as having incredible influence and affecting history (so they gave it to NYC Mayor Rudy Guliiani instead).
I don't think anybody in the West thought Ayatollah Khomeini (Man of the Year in 1979) was a great guy, for example. But, it was undeniable that he'd made a mark on history and international relations that year; he was all over the global media - mostly in a negative light here in the US.
TIME caught a ton of shit for giving Khomeini the title though, so they seem to stick with playing it safe.
I remember reading in 2001 that Osama Bin Laden was the top contender according to the criteria. He certainly made a huge mark on the world. But, it would have offended people who only want to think of good guys as having incredible influence and affecting history (so they gave it to NYC Mayor Rudy Guliiani instead).