"Though we spent hours debating the pros and cons of naming Osama bin Laden, it ultimately became easy to dismiss him," said managing editor Jim Kelly. "He is not a larger-than-life figure with broad historical sweep ... he is smaller than life, a garden-variety terrorist whose evil plan succeeded beyond his highest hopes."
"Smaller than life?" What does that mean? For worse, those attacks have had lasting implications everywhere. Sounds like they realised they'd be slammed really hard if they stuck to accuracy so they backed down with some handy-wavy nonsense about being brave.
If their bravery had caused a proper response, similar to how Norway responded to that mass-shooting, then it'd be worthwhile to note. But despite their bravery, that "garden-variety terrorist" has succeeded in scaring people into allowing their government to expand powers.
And the dismissal that it doesn't matter because he didn't think it'd work out - that's just idiotic. Do we disqualify scientists from the other Nobel prizes because "they really didn't think this experiment would discover anything"?
It means they were writing for their U.S. audience at the time, who wanted to see Bin Laden put down and diminished.
Hitler was Time's Man of the Year in 1938, based on his foreign policy maneuvering at that time. Despite the much greater enormity and historical impact of the Holocaust, he wasn't put there in 1945 or any time since.
Time editors are not going to expose themselves to that level of social anger. No matter how many times they say "Man of the Year" is not a reward, it still has that connotation in a lot of people's minds.
I don't think it's an "injustice" and I don't think "robbed" is the right word either. I'm unaware of anyone I know that really cares what some magazine writes.
I'm just pointing out their terrible use of rhetoric and lack of logic.
They chose Giuliani instead.
http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/12/23/giuliani.time/