Vote in the poll for who want to win. Comment in the thread for whom you think will win if it’s not the same person.
I voted for Pope Francis, I think he’s likely to win and he’s certainly had an influence during his very brief papacy.
The inclusion of Miley Cyrus is a joke, probably designed to increase Time’s viewership as people go into the comments section to protest her inclusion.
Recall that Time’s criterion for the person of the year is supposedly the individual who has had the biggest impact on the news, good or bad, for the year. They have often tossed that criterion in the trash to either avoid giving it to someone they don’t like, or to make some political point. However, hewing to that standard, Cyrus might well be in the running, given the media’s soft news/infotainment focus.
However, the correct answer might well be “who cares?” Time is a shadow of its former self, and the Person of the Year designation is no longer big deal.
Whereas Entertainment Weekly indicates the celebrity of the year is probably Grumpy Cat.
It is still something people will talk about even if, ironically, most of the conversation will be taking place on the internet.
Pope Francis ought to win. I have a lot of problems with him, his being Catholic and all, but the way it seems to me, the last Pope’s message was:
Francis seems to say:
Obviously paraphrasing, but the change in emphasis is so profound that I find myself quite liking the guy, and I’m hoping very much that he’ll shift the international conversation on poverty by focusing on it, as well as shifting the international conversation on sexual “morality” by not focusing on it.
Snowden is an interesting choice, but his influence on the news seems to be something of an historical inevitability: if Snowden didn’t do it, I’m convinced someone else would have.
If it’s anyone other than Snowden it would be a travesty. It would put Time’s dwindling journalistic reputation in doubt. Nobody has had as much impact this year on the world, the news, international relations, and Americans’ trust in government.
I imagine Eddie Snow (and his secret evil twin, Edwin, maybe?) and Pope Francis both have a decent shot at it.
Americans are quite outnumbered by Catholics. The USA is only 5% of the world.
Where is Doonesbury - he was away for months and it was just Hell getting up each morning without his making lie worthwhile. Now that he is back - better than ever - life is great!
Are they serious with some of these? Cruz? Sebelius? Really? What did Bezos do to get on here? Buy the WAPO? Because newspapers still matter right?
Snowden’s actions were actually relevant to multiple countries across the world, as opposed to one or two as with most of the others. Going gaga over the Pope talking about poor people is like going gaga over Putin taking his shirt off. That’s just what they do.
There’s probably someone in China or India who affected way more lives than any of these people.
Funny how perception changes. I wouldn’t have even thought of his name when thinking about the question and you think they should hang it up if he’s not named.
So Pope Francis is talking about poverty–unfortunately this is a subject he can do little about.
However as Pope there are areas where he could make a massive impact, such as:
- Overpopulation–the Catholic Church’s position on contraception
- Equality of women–ordination of women priests
The fact that I was unaware of this until just now says all that needs to be said about Garry Trudeau’s current relevance.
I thought his message was “I didn’t do it. Nobody saw me do it. You can’t prove anything.”
who’s more willing to air things out; Miley or Francis?
Yes, but Snowden’s impact has been felt well beyond the boundaries of the USA. Francis’ has too, of course, but mostly in a symbolic way so far. I am generally the first person to bitch about the American press’ inability to recognize the fact that other countries exist, but Snowden was the biggest global news story of the year.
I voted for the Pope, but Snowden was my second choice.
I can see the argument for either one. But it looks to me like the Pope may actually change the international conversation: the largest Christian organization on earth and in history looks like its about to get a lot more serious about combating poverty. By extension, Catholic laypeople, including politicians, are probably going to start feeling a lot more pressure to combat poverty. Yes, the Pope just has a bully pulpit, but it’s arguably the most important bully pulpit in all history.
I’m not sure that Snowden actually changed many people’s minds, or changed the conversation. It seems to me that he confirmed what most folks already knew; and those whose views aren’t confirmed by him tend to think he’s a traitor. Are there really that many folks whose minds were changed by Snowden, or international relationships significantly changed by his actions?
The other thing is that Snowden’s influence is likely to wane. The Pope’s is likely to increase.
They say His Holiness can really get his twerk on when he’s had a couple of glasses of wine.