EDITED: Change link to proper article instead of a stupid video, and changed associated text to match new URL.
Disgusting, in my opinion.
EDITED: Change link to proper article instead of a stupid video, and changed associated text to match new URL.
Disgusting, in my opinion.
I mean, he is definitely person of the year. It’s not best person of the year, it’s the person that had the most impact. His victory was more sweeping than anyone expected. He gained ground in every demographic. The political parties are likely to be forever changed after that election. I just hope the democrats don’t learn the wrong lessons.
Why do it that way, though? It’s always felt like it must have been a retcon to explain why they messed up and went with Hitler in 38. Why call someone horrible “person of the year” and give them more attention. Seems like time could be spent better on someone that had a positive impact.
Because it’s their publication and that’s how they decided to do it? I don’t know, I’m not the one calling the shots at Time magazine. I think you can make strong justifications for either way of doing it. It’s probably harder to do it the way you’re suggesting because no one has a crystal ball and you can’t know that someone won’t become a terrible person or that they’re hiding some terrible thing.
They’re being way to delicate with him, though. If he’s that bad that should be showcasing just awful he is.