Pope Francis: Time Person of the Year 2013.

Turtwig

No, I'm not joking.

I hope the narrative the media is going for on him is correct but considering the cardinals that elected him. This strikes me as flat earth news painting a picture of a pope people want but he hasn't actually changed anything. Just quietly backed away from the more controversial issues and focuses on the popular stuff.

endacl

Didn't Kissinger win that once? And Hitler in 1938. Stalin the following year. Khomeini won in 1978.

I'd say it not an accolade to be singing about...

28064212

Hell, I won it in 2006 :pac:

Also the award is not necessarily a positive statement. It's awarded to someone that "for better or for worse, ...has done the most to influence the events of the year" [wiki]

robindch

Poe'd on the second post -- a forum record!

Manach

Thanks to the OP - that certain is excellent news and made my day- perhaps that modulership of the Christianity forum is rubbing off on you

DapperGent

endacl wrote: »

Didn't Kissinger win that once? And Hitler in 1938. Stalin the following year. Khomeini won in 1978.

I'd say it not an accolade to be singing about...

I don't think it's meant principally to be a laudatory award but more who had the hugest impact on the world during the given year. At least that was always my understanding.

Kissinger winning the Nobel Peace Prize, now that was fúcking disgusting.

Cabaal

endacl wrote: »

Didn't Kissinger win that once? And Hitler in 1938. Stalin the following year. Khomeini won in 1978.

I'd say it not an accolade to be singing about...

Hitler & Bush, not saying they are the same type of people.
But really it shoes how meaningless the man of the year title really is

[-0-]

Should have been Snowden.

robindch

Not to mention Mr Putain:

wretcheddomain

Michael Nugent for 2014.

Delirium

Anyone got any of the reasons why the Papal One was chosen?

All I can find is "well he's a humble guy."

Benny_Cake

It's a strange award at the best of times. MLK and Gandhi won it, but so did Hitler, Stalin, and Pierre Laval (before he sold his country to the Nazis). I'd imagine it's decided by a bunch of media types looking at the people other media types are talking about in a particular year. Given the amount of coverage Francis has received this year, that's possibly him?

I Heart Internet

koth wrote: »

Anyone got any of the reasons why the Papal One was chosen?

All I can find is "well he's a humble guy."

Impact. He's come, in nine months, from a person 99.5% of the world could not pick out of a crowd to being at the centre of debate on some of the biggest issues of our time. He has also managed to change the tone (I stress tone, becasue, as many point out, it is a matter of tone) around how the world's largest religion relates to the world and the world to it.

Impact. (Nothing to do with nice guy/bad guy....although the fact that people warm to the man is a reason he's had such an impact)

I like the guy. His currency is hope.

endacl

If it's a recognition of influence, why the pope? Only a proportion of those the church would claim as members of the church are actually active members. Only a proportion of those pay any attention to what the pope might have to say on any topic.

And I'm not just speaking of the Irish context.

I Heart Internet

endacl wrote: »

If it's a recognition of influence, why the pope? Only a proportion of those the church would claim as members of the church are actually active members. Only a proportion of those pay any attention to what the pope might have to say on any topic.

And I'm not just speaking of the Irish context.

Many non-catholics also seem to take a great interest in what he says. And it's not just a numbers game.

If the Pope said "I used to love watching Dallas" you can be sure that would make newspapers in most countries in the world tomorrow. That's a tongue-in-cheek example, but you get the idea.

DesperateDan

The December 31, 1999 issue of Time named Albert Einstein the "Person of the Century". Franklin D. Roosevelt and Mahatma Gandhi were chosen as runners-up.[6]

As a result of the public backlash it received from the United States for naming the Ayatollah Khomeini Man of the Year in 1979, Time has shied away from using figures that are controversial in the United States.[7] Time's Person of the Year 2001, immediately following the September 11, 2001 attacks, was New York City mayor Rudolph Giuliani, although the stated rules of selection, the individual or group of individuals who have had the biggest effect on the year's news, made Osama bin Laden a more likely choice. The issue that declared Giuliani the Person of the Year included an article that mentioned Time's earlier decision to elect the Ayatollah Khomeini and the 1999 rejection of Hitler as "Person of the Century". The article seemed to imply that Osama bin Laden was a stronger candidate than Giuliani, as Adolf Hitler was a stronger candidate than Albert Einstein. The selections were ultimately based on what the magazine describes as who they believed had a stronger influence on history and who represented either the year or the century the most. According to Time, Rudolph Giuliani was picked for symbolizing the American response to the September 11th attacks, and Albert Einstein picked for representing a century of scientific exploration and wonder.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Person_of_the_Year

Time's Person of the Year is supposed to be those who have had the most influence on the news events of the year. That's why Hitler and Francis have both made the list.

Cabaal

DesperateDan wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Person_of_the_Year

Time's Person of the Year is supposed to be those who have had the most influence on the news events of the year. That's why Hitler and Francis have both made the list.

Snowden has had far further reaching affects on media in the world then the pope did and likely ever will do,

Knasher

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Given the amount of coverage Francis has received this year, that's possibly him?

Not compared to Snowden, not even close. A lot of this is probably due to how the Snowden stories were leaked, one at a time over several months and often directly contradicting the assurances and damage control that the white house were engaging in.


I think the paragraph DesperateDan quoted hit the nail on the head. Snowden is too unpopular to be named person of the year.

Benny_Cake

Knasher wrote: »

Not compared to Snowden, not even close. A lot of this is probably due to how the Snowden stories were leaked, one at a time over several months and often directly contradicting the assurances and damage control that the white house were engaging in.


I think the paragraph DesperateDan quoted hit the nail on the head. Snowden is too unpopular to be named person of the year.

Francis's significance so far has been to put the emphasis on social justice, as opposed to the culture warrior stuff of the last 20 years. I think that is quite important, although I think only time will tell whether it has a lasting impact.

I would have had no problem with Snowden getting person of the year, although I think Chelsy Manning would have had an even stronger case, perhaps in 2010 (Mark Zuckerberg?!). If Newt Gingrich and Rudy Giuliani have won it, then it's pretty meaningless.

wp_rathead

Can't really understand, Basically reason I can gather was cause he not as overtly dicky as the last pope- and has tried to change the discourse for Catholics away from being obessed with gay marriage and abortion (not change the message mind, they still anti-both, just talk about something else) and focus on not worshiping money as much I guess.. (which has gone down a treat in US with some on Fox News calling him a liberal)




For me should have been young Malala Yousafzai

Links234

robindch wrote: »

Poe'd on the second post -- a forum record!

Did you mean poe'd or godwinned?

robindch

Oh, god (win).





(*) I'd mentioned poe to somebody else a short while before. Brain did a div-by-zero. Damn. Must be the christmas sherry.

Knasher

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Francis's significance so far has been to put the emphasis on social justice, as opposed to the culture warrior stuff of the last 20 years. I think that is quite important, although I think only time will tell whether it has a lasting impact.

It is hard to beat Francis in terms of global reach, so even though I can think of people who have had more substantive effects, I'd probably give the pope second place. But it wouldn't be a close second.

Though admittedly I tend to pay more attention to tech news than any other, so perhaps my view is biased towards news with a IT angle. But even then, considering the political ramifications, both in terms of internal American politics and worldwide relations, it is hard to imagine Snowden loosing.

I'd agree that Chelsea Manning had a better case in 2010 though. I'd probably give Mark Zuckerberg person of the decade, but I can't think of anything particularly noteworthy he did in 2010.

efb

I think he deserves it.

Piliger

TIME is an American magazine and we all know that the Americans are obsessed with religion and the pope.

Corkfeen

Time gives it to the most influential person of the year rather than the best individual of the year. The current pope merely avoids the controversial topics and just comes across as less aggressive in contrast to previous popes. However I really can't think of any significant things he's done, good or bad. He gets publicised for being modest but hasn't pushed for Catholic orders caught up in abuse accusations to compensate their victims etc.

He just seems to be more aesthetically pleasing to the public than Star wars pope.

magicbastarder

i think it's a good choice in the sense that the progressive things he's doing will be further highlighted and will give more impetus to them.

Piliger

magicbastarder wrote: »

i think it's a good choice in the sense that the progressive things he's doing will be further highlighted and will give more impetus to them.

Except he hasn't actually done much ... Just talked.

hungry hippo 4

didn't the aids virus win it before?

corkonion

I don't believe in the catholic faith or their ideology, however I do think this guy is far more credible than his predecessors and I get the feeling that he is a decent man despite his beliefs, I have no problem with his nomination and wish him well.

Piliger

Credible for what ? Will he change the rules on contraception, married priest or homosexuality for example ? Or will he just keep issuing cute and cuddly platitudes ?
For me that makes him a far more nasty piece of work than the last pope who at least had the honesty to walk the walk. All we seem to have now is a slithery spin doctor. This reminds me of when they handed Obama the peace prize without actually doing anything. It is utter nonsense.

Peregrinus

OK, first of all, this award is a bit of fluff.

Basically, it’s an award for being newsworthy. Newsworthy in terms of the kind of news that Time magazine likes to carry. Very, very newsworthy. Newsworthy enough to become a celebrity.

Of course, in contemporary American culture, fame is good, and being a celebrity is conceived of as a kind of virtue. Consequently, the award is seen as an accolade. There is serious blowback when Time nominates somebody who is influential but unpopular (with an American audience). In 1979 the editors chose Ayatollah Khomeini; they haven’t made a mistake like that since. In 2001, for example, Rudolph Giuliani got the gig, for his response as mayor of NYC to the September 11 attacks. You might think that Osama Bin Laden had the better claim to being the most newsworthy individual of 2001, but he was never in the running.

I agree, the actions of Snowden have probably had much more effect than anything Francis has done, so far. But Snowden is controversial in the US, so Francis gets the gig.

ShooterSF

Hey Obama got a noble prize just for not being George Bush (as much as I respect Obama) and this guy followed a guy that on the arsehole chart Bush wouldn't be fit to tie his shoelaces.

TwoShedsJackson

robindch wrote: »

Not to mention Mr Putain:

That is a great photo of Putin - it just screams 'I want to kill you all!'

Nodin

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

That is a great photo of Putin - it just screams 'I want to kill you all!'

"except you, the charming woman second to the left."

PopePalpatine

There's such a chilling aura about that photo. :eek:

Brian Shanahan

Manach wrote: »

Thanks to the OP - that certain is excellent news and made my day- perhaps that modulership of the Christianity forum is rubbing off on you

How did you get to that kind of response from what was a pretty damning indictment of both Time and Bergoglio in the OP

Brian Shanahan

Knasher wrote: »

Not compared to Snowden, not even close. A lot of this is probably due to how the Snowden stories were leaked, one at a time over several months and often directly contradicting the assurances and damage control that the white house were engaging in.

Well even if all the leaks came at once there still would be the same massive reaction to the fact that the spy agencies of the "Five Eyes" to spy on the whole world for no reasons other than they can, and that this spying can lead to massive financial gain (the fact that most of the NSA's people with top secret clearance are in fact contractors on secondment from some of the biggest private companies (something like 80%) is a big red flag to say pecuniary gain is the motive with them).

I think the paragraph DesperateDan quoted hit the nail on the head. Snowden is too unpopular to be named person of the year.

He's probably a lot more popular than most of the media paint him. Most Americans are outraged at the extent of the spying whether they're left or right, and understand what he did for their country. The only thing rescuing the Obama administration at the moment is the fact that a lot of the architecture was built back in the Shrub era, so the likes of the teahadists and faux news can't actually touch him atm.

Edit: Just thinking myself, I have often felt that the Time "person of the year" has often been picked on a case of the office either being asked "what's the most boneheaded pick we can offer" (on the basis that controversy sells) or "whats the least offensive pick we can make to avoid the true most influential person" (on the basis that the owner of the mag {Time Warner} is deeply enmeshed in the power circle of the US and doesn't want to rock the boat).

Piliger

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Edit: Just thinking myself, I have often felt that the Time "person of the year" has often been picked on a case of the office either being asked "what's the most boneheaded pick we can offer" (on the basis that controversy sells) or "whats the least offensive pick we can make to avoid the true most influential person" (on the basis that the owner of the mag {Time Warner} is deeply enmeshed in the power circle of the US and doesn't want to rock the boat).

The thing is ... this person of the year is not an AWARD. It is simply a marketing tool for TIME.

Too many Americans oppose Snowden, despite his enormous popularity in Europe and elsewhere.

The pope on the other hand is enormously popular because so much of America is obsessed with religion and the pope in particular. That makes the pope an excellent marketing 'good news' 'feel good' story for them.

Brian Shanahan

Piliger wrote: »

Too many Americans oppose Snowden, despite his enormous popularity in Europe and elsewhere.

He's fairly popular in America too, it's just that the people in power (between pols, military, big business and the judiciary he's got everybody with heft angry) hate his guts right now. If it were an Seosamh O'Snowdon who spilled the beans on EU spying he'd have the same problems in Europe that Edward has in the US.

Piliger

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

He's fairly popular in America too, it's just that the people in power (between pols, military, big business and the judiciary he's got everybody with heft angry) hate his guts right now. If it were an Seosamh O'Snowdon who spilled the beans on EU spying he'd have the same problems in Europe that Edward has in the US.

Indeed, as I said, too many people oppose him. As to Europe I don't believe that would be the case at all,.

Brian Shanahan

Piliger wrote: »

Indeed, as I said, too many people oppose him. As to Europe I don't believe that would be the case at all,.

If the EU had the kind of spying capabilities that the five eyes do, of course a whistleblower would be done for.

Take for example the case of Hans-Martin Tillack when he revealed that OLAF (the EU anti-fraud agency) were sitting on incriminatory documents proving fraud was going on in EUROSTAT. Illegal searches were entered into in his offices in Belgium, and the EU hounded him through the courts (without any legal justificiation) throughout Europe.

Piliger

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

If the EU had the kind of spying capabilities that the five eyes do, of course a whistleblower would be done for.

Take for example the case of Hans-Martin Tillack when he revealed that OLAF (the EU anti-fraud agency) were sitting on incriminatory documents proving fraud was going on in EUROSTAT. Illegal searches were entered into in his offices in Belgium, and the EU hounded him through the courts (without any legal justificiation) throughout Europe.

Apples and oranges and too many 'ifs'.

Hotblack Desiato

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I like the guy. His currency is hope.

Sounds like some sort of catholic Obama :rolleyes: and will probably turn out to be just as superficial.

Cabaal

He gives great hope to the abuse victims

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/04/vatican-refuses-un-panel-details-clerical-sex-abuse-cases

The Holy See, which signed the convention on the rights of the child in 1990, argues that while it encourages the rights recognised on a global basis, it can only implement them on the territory of the Vatican city state.

Brown Bomber

Pope Francis, The Choice

With a focus on compassion, the leader of the Catholic Church has become a new voice of conscience. Managing Editor Nancy Gibbs explains why Francis is TIME's choice for Person of the Year 2013


Read more: The Choice: Nancy Gibbs on Why Pope Francis Is TIME's Person of the Year 2013 | TIME.com http://poy.time.com/2013/12/11/pope-francis-the-choice/#ixzz2o10XvfEa


<snip>

Brian Shanahan

Brown Bomber wrote: »

<snip>

Well done BB you've just managed to commit libel.

Malcolm.

Frankie's popularity won't last forever, something will stick soon enough

Piliger

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Well done BB you've just managed to commit libel.

The whole catholic church is a pro pedo organisation ? They knew about it, they took part and they protected and facilitated it. And we have no evidence that it has changed.

Brown Bomber

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Well done BB you've just managed to commit libel.

It's only libel if it's false.

oscarBravo

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It's only libel if it's false.

If you want to walk a fine line between whether or not something is defamatory, do it on your own website. If you want to use "truth" as a defence, do it in court on your own dime.

This isn't an invitation to discuss the topic.

- admin