Time Magazine Should Redefine its "Man of the Year"

I realize this is way-old pre-Christmas news, but shouldn't Time Magazine redefine their criteria for choosing a Person of the Year? I have been scooped, so let me link: The Wussification of the Time "Person of the Year"

For those not interested in link-following, the crux of the article is that Time Magazine has been willfully disregarding their own criteria for "Person of the Year" for the sake of sales for a good long time. The most glaring example of this occurred in 2001. Consider their definition of the Person of the Year: The person, group, or idea who, "for better or worse, has most influenced events in the preceding year". Now think of 2001 and tell me if you were thinking of Rudy Giuliani. Exactly. Osama bin Laden was far and away the correct choice for 2001's Person of the Year, and Time copped out, because they knew it would be unpopular.

The article concentrates on the Person of the Year choices from 2001 to 2006, and perhaps that is when the cop-outs began to happen with predictability, but word on the street is that Time lost many subscribers after giving Ayatollah Khomeni the title in 1979.

I don't have a problem with Time making good business choices. They are, after all, a business. However, business or not, a news outlet should demonstrate some minimal standard of integrity. What does it say about Time when they can't even respect a definition that they themselves chose?

So, half of the blame to Time and half to the 2006 Person of the Year: You. If only you prized the truth above knee-jerk patriotism, you might have canceled your subscriptions in 2001-2 and Time might have had a reason to start making principled choices again.