For sure, but it'd also be a mistake to over-correct that status. Senna was already very popular and hugely appreciated before his tragic accident, for all the obvious reasons.
Even if he had retired safely in 1996 or whenever, he'd still be ranked right up there as one of the fastest drivers F1 has seen. Maybe the negative aspects of his career and personality would have been given a more prominent part in the narrative, but it would have been, and is, silly to discount the performances because of that.
Silly to discount the performances because of giving prominence to the negative aspects of his career?
Now, I am for 99% sure that, had Suzuka 1990 not been determined by Senna in the manner he opted for, but instead had the race develop as is it was to go, then again I am 99% sure that he still would have become champion that year. But then in a much more honorable manner that how he did secure the title.
Prost was already at the point of having to drop points scored and in Suzuka and Australia he had to improve on a 5th and a 4rd place (a total of 5 points!) So only victories and second places did him any good. And that was a very difficult thing to do against Senna & McLaren-Honda. So I am fairly sure that Senna would have been champion anyway.
Given the fact that as we know, Prost finished third in Australia (Senna DNF), even having won Suzuka would not have helped Prost to gain the title. But how different could Australia have been had it still been the title decider? Would Prost have found something more to finish higher????
Anyway, There is still that little itch that one of the performances within his career Senna is reverred for: it was secured thanks to the worst ever outburst of utterly negative behaviour of any driver during a race.
And that, while the situation he was in really didn't need such an outburst at all to enhance his title chances, or securing it....
Maybe you want to ignore that, think it to be silly.
I don't ignore it and I don't think it's silly to do so.