4 ms·

doesn't deserve it a bit. Snowden brought up a debate that is lasting, that concerns us. there is nothing the pope brought up that defined the year. Mandela wou

doesn't deserve it a bit. Snowden brought up a debate that is lasting, that concerns us. there is nothing the pope brought up that defined the year. Mandela would have been a better choice.

kintamanimatt 13y ago
A comment from reddit might explain the farce: "For those curious, I have a friend who worked at Time magazine for many decades and I asked him once how they choose the Person of the Year. He said that while on paper they claim to ask everyone who works there and such, in actuality a board of editors/managers/etc go into a conference room and try to figure out the sweet spot of "person it seems plausible we chose, but is still slightly controversial so we can sell a lot of issues." (Presidential election years are almost boring, as whoever wins is virtually guaranteed to get it.) I'm guessing, based on that, it came down to Snowden vs Pope Francis and the board decided there are a lot of Catholics who were going to buy the magazine if he was on the cover... and older people who are more likely to buy magazines." http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/1smplz/pope_francis_is_times_person_of_the_year_for_2013/cdz3vm2 http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/1smplz/pope_franc...
untog 13y ago
While I agree that Snowden would have been a great choice, I don't think the Pope is a bad one. He's ushered in a new era in one of the biggest religions in the world. It just doesn't impact on the Hacker News crowd so much.
- infruset 13y ago
  I don't think the (absolute) merits of Francis are questioned by comments so much as their weight relative to that of Snowden's revelation. Furthermore, a new Catholic leader who shows something different from the hate and bigotry we've seen in the past may be positive, but it shouldn't be something we celebrate as the single best accomplishment in a year IMHO.

doesn't deserve it a bit. Snowden brought up a debate that is lasting, that concerns us. there is nothing the pope brought up that defined the year. Mandela would have been a better choice.

kintamanimatt 13y ago

A comment from reddit might explain the farce: "For those curious, I have a friend who worked at Time magazine for many decades and I asked him once how they choose the Person of the Year. He said that while on paper they claim to ask everyone who works there and such, in actuality a board of editors/managers/etc go into a conference room and try to figure out the sweet spot of "person it seems plausible we chose, but is still slightly controversial so we can sell a lot of issues." (Presidential election years are almost boring, as whoever wins is virtually guaranteed to get it.) I'm guessing, based on that, it came down to Snowden vs Pope Francis and the board decided there are a lot of Catholics who were going to buy the magazine if he was on the cover... and older people who are more likely to buy magazines." http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/1smplz/pope_francis_is_times_person_of_the_year_for_2013/cdz3vm2 http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/1smplz/pope_franc...

untog 13y ago

While I agree that Snowden would have been a great choice, I don't think the Pope is a bad one. He's ushered in a new era in one of the biggest religions in the world. It just doesn't impact on the Hacker News crowd so much.

infruset 13y ago
I don't think the (absolute) merits of Francis are questioned by comments so much as their weight relative to that of Snowden's revelation. Furthermore, a new Catholic leader who shows something different from the hate and bigotry we've seen in the past may be positive, but it shouldn't be something we celebrate as the single best accomplishment in a year IMHO.