Person of the year is the person considered to have had the most significant influence on the world, but not necessarily for the better. It's an acknowledgment of their significance, not an endorsement of their actions. Previous winners include Hitler, Stalin and Ayatullah Khomeini.

No matter where someone falls on the Snoweden-is-a-terrorist/Snowden-is-a-hero scale, they can all agree that his actions greatly influenced the current poltical narrative, and stands a good chance of changing the world (for better or worse depending on which side of the debate you stand on) as we move forward.

> Person of the year is the person considered to have had the most significant influence on the world, but not necessarily for the better. It's an acknowledgment of their significance, not an endorsement of their actions. Previous winners include Hitler, Stalin and Ayatullah Khomeini.

IIRC those were all Man of the Year. TIME's choices in more recent years have been far more wimpy (e.g. Osama Bin Laden was snubbed in 2001); while their stated aim is to pick the most significant (for good or ill) person, I no longer have any faith that they will do so.

Putin and Miley Cyrus is currently close to the top. Together with Snowden, they create a holy trinity of heroes.

Or the "axis of evil" depending on your point of view.

Public opinion polls are split on Edward Snowden.

Government: Snowden is a terrorist. People: Snowden is a hero. Other People: Snowden is neither.