Pope is Time's Person of the Year - Seriously?

[Replicant]

With everything that has happened in 2014 we have Time Magazine pandering to Catholics by making the Pope "Person of the Year".

To be honest this is just dumb, this is like giving Obama the Nobel Peace prize based on the assumption that he will do something great. Can we at least wait and see what he accomplishes before we anoint him.


http://poy.time.com/2013/12/11/pope-francis-the-choice/

[Gaidin]

Why is it anything like giving Obama the Nobel? In the nine months he's been in office the man's actually done noticeable things to shift the monstrous creature that is the Roman Catholic Church.

[Replicant]

Why is it anything like giving Obama the Nobel? In the nine months he's been in office the man's actually done noticeable things to shift the monstrous creature that is the Roman Catholic Church.

First off because there are people who changed the world more than he did and second off he has started to work to change the CHURCH, so his effect while grand for the church and its flock to a degree is still limited to a segment of the Christian world.

[Gaidin]

First off because there are people who changed the world more than he did and second off he has started to work to change the CHURCH, so his effect while grand for the church and its flock to a degree is still limited to a segment of the Christian world.

So? Hell, the man's got atheists saying they respect plenty of what he's saying and doing. This is, relatively speaking, only Time's Person of the Year. And as I said, he's only shifted the monster that is the policy of the Catholic Church. When he's actually moved that behemoth, should it be done or attempted, something done over a years long career anyway, then that's worth arguing over a larger prize.

[mr friendly guy]

While the Nobel Peace Prize (which is a joke anyway), has criteria such that someone can win it for what they might do rather than what they have done (which makes the joke worse), I was under the impression that Time's person of the year worked by that person actually being the most influential to world events for that year. By this criteria OBL and Hitler were once person of the year. Thus wouldn't the person of the year had to have done something in 2013 (not 2014).

Thus its not quite like giving Obama a Nobel because the judges seem to be following its bullshit rules.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

First off because there are people who changed the world more than he did and second off he has started to work to change the CHURCH, so his effect while grand for the church and its flock to a degree is still limited to a segment of the Christian world.

Seriously, dude? The Catholic Church has like a billion followers. That's the entirety of the American continent from Mexico on down, about half of Africa and a third of Europe that have Catholic majorities. Oh the poor unpopular old man.

[Thanas]

Time did not want to give it to Snowden.

But the pope is a good choice as well.

[K. A. Pital]

Time did not want to give it to Snowden.

In this case they're just... wrong.

[Replicant]

First off because there are people who changed the world more than he did and second off he has started to work to change the CHURCH, so his effect while grand for the church and its flock to a degree is still limited to a segment of the Christian world.

Seriously, dude? The Catholic Church has like a billion followers. That's the entirety of the American continent from Mexico on down, about half of Africa and a third of Europe that have Catholic majorities. Oh the poor unpopular old man.

A billion that is 1/6 of the planets population and lets be honest, the Popes actions have directly affected maybe 10% of those people if we are being generous. He has said a bunch of nice things. He has NOT ended poverty or pedophile priests, brought down governments, ended wars, stopped global warming. He has talked and while his talk has sounded good most of the actual changes have only applied to the clergy and the church directly. Giving worshippers of the faith a great big "warm fuzzy feeling" does not Person of the Year make.

[Edi]

Time's person of the year award is completely meaningless, as are all of their lists of Top 100 Most Important/Influential Person of X special runs. Utterly worthless distinctions.

Time has never named a person of the year who is in really bad odor with the US government. Remember who was person of the year in 2001? Certainly not one Osama bin Laden, who clearly fulfilled all the criteria used for choosing. Same this year for Snowden, because it would have been an implied criticism of the US government and we can't certainly have that, can we? Fortunately the new pope is an at least somewhat good alternative.

[LaCroix]

A billion that is 1/6 of the planets population and lets be honest, the Popes actions have directly affected maybe 10% of those people if we are being generous. He has said a bunch of nice things. He has NOT ended poverty or pedophile priests, brought down governments, ended wars, stopped global warming. He has talked and while his talk has sounded good most of the actual changes have only applied to the clergy and the church directly. Giving worshippers of the faith a great big "warm fuzzy feeling" does not Person of the Year make.

You do know that this is just an (basically irrelevant to the world's daily business) magazine's opinion, not an official title by any notable organization, right?

And to clarify:

Time's most famous feature throughout its history has been the annual "Person of the Year" (formerly "Man of the Year") cover story, in which Time recognizes the individual or group of individuals who have had the biggest impact on news headlines over the past 12 months. The distinction is supposed to go to the person who, for good or ill, has most affected the course of the year; it is therefore not necessarily an honor or a reward. In the past, such figures as Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin have been Man of the Year.

Emphasis mine - this "title" is similar to Google annually announcing the person with the most Google hits...

[K. A. Pital]

So the Pope was more newsworthy than Snowden? Unbelievable, sorry.

[Ahriman238]

And just what have you done with your year, Replicant?

The guy has started the ball on reforms to one of the largest organizations on the planet, vaster than most nations. He has told people that they can't justify a variety of loathsome actions and attitudes in Christ's name, begun the process for revising the Apostolic Constitution, reached out to other faiths and even atheists,called for world peace and environmentalism. Sure, a lot of it is talk, but if you're Catholic you listen to a voice from the See of Rome. And while this has been going on, he's still been ministering to the poor and making time in his schedule to talk to the kids in juvie.

So having a huge positive impact on a truly vast number of people doesn't qualify you? What, do you have to save each and every life or touch every person in the world? Who was even a candidate besides Snowden?

[Replicant]

And just what have you done with your year, Replicant?

Aww, you don't like me beating up on your little popey guy so you make a personal attack? Yep, that sure tells me he should be Person of the Year since he inspired you to be so small.

[Thanas]

Time has never named a person of the year who is in really bad odor with the US government. Remember who was person of the year in 2001? Certainly not one Osama bin Laden, who clearly fulfilled all the criteria used for choosing. Same this year for Snowden, because it would have been an implied criticism of the US government and we can't certainly have that, can we? Fortunately the new pope is an at least somewhat good alternative.

They used to do it when they were a real journalism outfit. Heck, they had Manstein on the cover in 1942 and named Hitler person of the year in the thirties. Now they are a joke. When your most famous journalist is Joe Klein...well.

[Edi]

Yes, well, if we want to go back to ancient near-history, true.

But the last 20-30 years, particularly the past 20 and less? Joke is being charitable. I used to have a subscription up until five years ago or thereabouts because my mom had ordered it for me as a gift way back when in the 1990s. I asked her to discontinue it for rather obvious reasons.

[Ahriman238]

Personal attack, nothing, and I'm sorry if that offends you. I just find it curious that anyone can dismiss someone's actions because they effect only 1/6 of the world's population, or using your generous figures 1/60. How many people are enough? Who has done more to change the world this year? Because of Francis an awful lot of people are seriously examining their beliefs and assumptions about the world and, at the risk of being incredibly rude, this is not a segment of the population generally given to much self-reflection. How much is that worth?

Serious question, who else was on the finalists list? Snowden made a great act of personal courage that changed depressingly little. Ted Cruz cost the US millions with his grandstanding, and came this close to tanking the global economy. I see Obama was up again, for what exactly? Who else, Edith Windsor? Actually a serious candidate, I admit I don't know as much about her as I likely should. Jeff Bezos, Miley Cyrus (really? really?) the leaders of Syria and Iran, and who the hell is Kathleen Sebelius?

If we're going to take this silly popularity contest seriously, who deserved it more? Maybe Windsor, maybe Snowden. The rest of the list is a joke.

[LaCroix]

So the Pope was more newsworthy than Snowden? Unbelievable, sorry.

That's subjective. They count headline presence. How many headlines did Snowden have? He was present in the news for a few weeks, tops. Pope Francis pops up every few days with something that makes the newspapers roar, it seems. Hard to say without a proper count.

[Replicant]

So the Pope was more newsworthy than Snowden? Unbelievable, sorry.

That's subjective. They count headline presence. How many headlines did Snowden have? He was present in the news for a few weeks, tops. Pope Francis pops up every few days with something that makes the newspapers roar, it seems. Hard to say without a proper count.

Snowden is on the Drudge at least once a week. The EU Parliament is looking to have him give some sort of deposition in regards to NSA spying on European governments and their leaders. Companies like Microsoft and Google are facing near daily challenges over their association with the NSA spying.

Sorry, the speeches of the Pope and the starting of his planned changes to the Church do not compare.

[Mr. Coffee]

Biggest news I'm getting out of this thread is that Replicant gets his ass chapped over stupid feel-good gimmicks in magazines no one gives a fuck about.

Why is this horseshit in N&P?

[Dr. Trainwreck]

A billion that is 1/6 of the planets population and lets be honest, the Popes actions have directly affected maybe 10% of those people if we are being generous.

I'd love to know how exactly you reach that figure, that only 10% of Catholics are actually influenced by their, y'know, Pope.

He has said a bunch of nice things. He has NOT ended poverty or pedophile priests, brought down governments, ended wars, stopped global warming. He has talked and while his talk has sounded good most of the actual changes have only applied to the clergy and the church directly. Giving worshippers of the faith a great big "warm fuzzy feeling" does not Person of the Year make.

Well, he is Person of the Year according to a bunch of stupid castrati who simply don't have the balls to put Snowden forth, because the journalists of today would never comprehend the idea of not being a powerslave. What Time thinks is mostly irrelevant, I only butted in to wonder what world is this where the Pope is not important.

And what kind of asinine expectation is it to wait for one man to stop global warming and eradicate poverty in a year?

[Replicant]

A billion that is 1/6 of the planets population and lets be honest, the Popes actions have directly affected maybe 10% of those people if we are being generous.

I'd love to know how exactly you reach that figure, that only 10% of Catholics are actually influenced by their, y'know, Pope.

He has said a bunch of nice things. He has NOT ended poverty or pedophile priests, brought down governments, ended wars, stopped global warming. He has talked and while his talk has sounded good most of the actual changes have only applied to the clergy and the church directly. Giving worshippers of the faith a great big "warm fuzzy feeling" does not Person of the Year make.

Well, he is Person of the Year according to a bunch of stupid castrati who simply don't have the balls to put Snowden forth, because the journalists of today would never comprehend the idea of not being a powerslave. What Time thinks is mostly irrelevant, I only butted in to wonder what world is this where the Pope is not important.

And what kind of asinine expectation is it to wait for one man to stop global warming and eradicate poverty in a year?

You missed the point completely.

I will leave it at this. The Pope has done things, most of those things are changing focus and inner workings at the church, which could benefit people in the future if the next Pope doesn't go all traditionalist on everyone and change them back. Second, he has given speeches that say wonderful things and give those who listen and believe a great warm fuzzy feeling inside.

But in the end the actual things he has done have directly affected people directly in the church, again, warm fuzzy feelings does not Man of the Year make. Now if his changes result in some huge anti-poverty program starting that creates a movement to help people, then hell give him the award that year. But this year his words and actions have not actually accomplished anything. They certainly have not made him the single greatest shaper of the last year. Snowden wins that hands down without a second glance.

[Replicant]

While the Nobel Peace Prize (which is a joke anyway), has criteria such that someone can win it for what they might do rather than what they have done (which makes the joke worse), I was under the impression that Time's person of the year worked by that person actually being the most influential to world events for that year. By this criteria OBL and Hitler were once person of the year. Thus wouldn't the person of the year had to have done something in 2013 (not 2014).

Thus its not quite like giving Obama a Nobel because the judges seem to be following its bullshit rules.

Does this apply to every aspect of the Nobel Prize or just the Peace prize? I have never hear the prize for Literature being given for someone who is going to write a book, never seen the prize for Medicine given to someone who just started their research into curing something.

You get what I mean, if this is an actual rule then it is a very rarely invoked rule that was pulled out to justify an award that should not have been given.

[Simon_Jester]

Time did not want to give it to Snowden.

In this case they're just... wrong.

Could you expand on why Snowden's impact is greater than that of Pope Francis?

By the same argument I'm seeing, Snowden hasn't changed the world because, well... there's not a lot of reaction. If we measure people by their reaction and discount anything we're not sure will stick, then Snowden releasing a lot of information on the NSA doesn't matter if it doesn't change the NSA's operations.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

You missed the point completely.

I will leave it at this. The Pope has done things, most of those things are changing focus and inner workings at the church, which could benefit people in the future if the next Pope doesn't go all traditionalist on everyone and change them back. Second, he has given speeches that say wonderful things and give those who listen and believe a great warm fuzzy feeling inside.

But in the end the actual things he has done have directly affected people directly in the church, again, warm fuzzy feelings does not Man of the Year make. Now if his changes result in some huge anti-poverty program starting that creates a movement to help people, then hell give him the award that year. But this year his words and actions have not actually accomplished anything. They certainly have not made him the single greatest shaper of the last year. Snowden wins that hands down without a second glance.

You do nothing but repeat your whining. Time's Man of the Year Award means nothing and is completely irrelevant to anything important; if Francis' speeches affect too few people, Time's circulations affect even less. So, nobody cares whether the current Pope fulfills Time's criteria or not. Or rather nobody would care except for you, who is really trying to make it a debate.