´óÏó´«Ã½

Julian Assange -
- for what will become a long-lasting impact on real journalism;
- for reshaping the dynamics between journalists and government officials, in terms of journalists' ability to get real, valid information;
- for causing effects not yet known (e.g. government may restrict Freedom of In formation and become even less "democratic")
- for encouraging the type of information - transparent information that people need to be informed citizens within a real democracy
- for giving meaning to the First Amendment. In publishing diplomatic cables, WikiLeaks is engaging in journalistic activity protected by the First Amendment, and the government overreaction to publication of leaked information IS MORE DAMAGING THAN THE ACTUAL INFORMATION.

PERSOM?
:)

There are so many deserving to be the person for 2010, most of them are unknown to the world at large but without whom the qualty of our lives wouldn't be as good. I don't think that nobody in our present Exceutive is worth it given the ongoing problems we had and are still having with the frost, snow, non gritting of footpaths and some roads and the situation with Northern Ireland Water.

Ann Widdecombe a distant second to Pope Benedict XVI. His visit was a masterclass in courtesy and sensitivity. I believe he has established the credentials needed to be the first Pontiff to visit both the North and South of Ireland, without being seen as a threat, but only someone eager to remind everyone of the priceless gift of faith first bestowed by St. Patrick.

Theophane

Not sure if he is deserving of being the person of the year, but I do agrree Ratzinger has had a remarkable time of it recently.

He has been able to turn his life around from his early years in the Hitler Youth, but take much of what he learned there on into priesthood and into his life in the Vatican.

He has been largely successful in distancing himself from a scandal when he was Archbishop of Munich, the relevant documents having mysteriously gone missing.

He was brilliant in pointing a finger at the Irish bishops earlier this year and dumping the blame on them for the child abuse scandal, even managing to avoid any of the Bishops standing up publicly and saying, "Eh we were only following your orders which you gave us in 2001." That was actually vintage Benedict.

Then there is his saintly forgiveness of Cardinal Law. His decision to do nothing about Maciel for over three decades showed patience way beyond the call of duty(!) and the welcoming back to the fold of holocaust denier Bishop Williamson. Now there was real charity in action.

Yep, Mizz Widdecome is certainly not in his league.

Theophane,

I agree with you for once, benny could visit North and South of Ireland without being seen as a threat. He is so anachronistic and irrelevant to most people that if the press didn't salivate so much most people wouldn't even know he was here. On the other hand visiting Ireland should be seen as a threat to him as he deserves to be arrested.

As for Anne Widdecombe, she does more to encourage a good sex life than anything else I can think of.

looking to St. Patrick I can only paraphrase "one man's gift is another man's plague"

Back to the plot, I still think Benny is person of the year because of the controversy he created - at least in those interested. People had to think about what he said and the polarisation he engenders has harmed his position and I think has made the course of gay rights, secularisation and women's rights and choices that much easier simply because he comes across as so absurd, aloof and uncaring.

Predictable nomination from Theophane there for the Man Who Can Do No Wrong.

I'm with Bluesberry; Julian Assange. If a government is worried about what their populace might think if what they really thought and did was made public, then they shouldn't be thinking/doing it.

Everything he does raises the game for governments and makes them accountable to us, those who vote for them.

I've made my suggestions on another thread, but - as has already been mentioned on this thread - I think a very strong case can be made for saying that Julian Assange has been the person (in the public eye) who has probably made the greatest impact in 2010 (of course, there are many people not in the public eye who are probably more deserving of the award).

I am not saying that I agree with everything Wikileaks does (and I certainly believe that certain sensitive information should be kept secret, for the sake of protecting innocent people), but Assange has lifted journalism to a more relevant and serious level and risked his life in the process (which certainly makes a refreshing change from much of what passes for 'journalism' in our media).

Young Capt. Kirk McCambley for boldly going where no man wants to go.

Just curious William - why was the Jesse Bering thread closed whilst active with just 64 comments on it and others can run and run?? We were just warming up......!

Sorry - had to pick a different thread to ask the question as the one it applies to is closed!

Why has no one mentioned Graham McDowell ?

Certainly someone who made you feel good in 2010 !

He's definitely be my choice.

I think William is trying to match Stephen Nolan in being controversal by nominating the pope as the man of the year. Sunday Sequence is becoming more and more equmenical in it’s views and content. I suppose this is part of the British Biased Corporation generally. I find it particularly offensive that the pope was given recognition this year where, 450 years ago, under the brave and godly leadership of John Knox and our other Reformers, the jurisdiction of the pope was forever abolished. He is also the head of a church which has been rocked worlwide by child sex abuse scandles. I am outraged and disgusted.

I am (error), I HAVE BEEN an avid listener to Sunday Sequence for years and William Crawley in particular had my attention in recent years. Even when taking my dog for an early Sun morn stroll I listened to Sunday Sequence as I walked.

Today I ask who the panel in ´óÏó´«Ã½ radio consists of to actually award the title of 'person of the year' without a democratic vote or an elected panel to act on the public's behalf.

In the absence of same might I suggest you quickly withdraw the award announced this morning. Not only is your lack of democracy evident in the process, the choice of the Pope highlights how closed a culture William Crawley and his producer Martin O'Brien circulate in. Being part of the surprising success and local euphoria of the papal visit has blinded both of them to the offence generally against abuse victims the world over that the figurehead of the current and past popes perpetrated.

I am a Catholic who chose to remain in the church and I also celebrated the success of pope benedict''s wisit to the UK for the Catholics there and for the revelation of the Pope's personality that it allowed. i also celebrated the pope's wisdom in reversing the policy re the use of condoms showing he is an independent thinker. But how could anyone with more than the parochial view fo being submerged in their own field as media people who had a successful programme opportunity on the back of the Pope's UK visit give an award "Person of the Year" when even in N Ireland we can anticipate equal horrors emerging about child abuse here that the church and the Congregation of the faith that the pope oversaw was aware of.??

You got it very wrong guys and i for one am a past listener As a Catholic and from a nationalist cultur, I could respect where you were coming from if oeter Robinson had received the award for even his courageous proposal to move towards overall integrated education given that this doesn't suit the vested intererests in education of any church etc and he cert ainly met your criterion of being in the media enough with the year personally and professionally in 2010.

In part i wish to thank you for you programmes in the past but part of me now feels swindled that I imagined I was listening to a programme produced and presented by free thinkers. Instead i now realise your are both latent churchmen adhering to the indoctrination of heirarchical culture and decision making that involved.

Sadly (or not if i accept reality) - no longer a Sunday Sequence listener

carmelr

Just listened to SS and read above comments.
Have to say I agree with Malachi and Gail on the programme - Sunday Sequence/William got it wrong in my opinion in voting the Pope Person of the Year. I agree with the points made Carmelr above as well. Seems like they have been swept along by the 'success' of the Papal visit without truly considering who the Pope really is, what he really stands for and how he has acted over the years. Nice words are all well and good in a few speeches but 'by their fruits ye shall know them'. Read Geoffrey Robertson's book and see the real fruits of the Pope.....they are not so sweet. And even if you don't read it - most un-indoctrinated people can see clearly what he's about by his actions over the years.

There is a difference between an award for the person who dominates the news for whatever reason (perceived 'good' or 'bad') and an award that is for 'person of the year' where the latter suggests that the person is being nominated for a perceived good, courage, advancement in some field or other, going above and beyond etc. The Pope can fulfil the first category as someone who has dominated the news - in the same way for example that Adolf Hitler could have dominated the news many years ago - but neither would be voted "person of the year" as someone who is acting in the best interests of all of humanity. Perhaps the award title should be changed to the "Person who Dominated the News" rather than 'The Person of the Year' - or perhaps there could be 2 awards? I can understand a vote for the Pope as 'Person who Dominated the News' but as for "Person of the Year" - it's an absolute joke except not a very funny one! What were you thinking William???

Although I hear the Pope is or maybe is going to do 'thought for the day' on radio 4 so maybe it's all just part of a plan to butter him up and get him on Sunday Sequence - as William intimated lightheartedly would be an aspiration of the producer. No smoke without fire and all that......but makes an even bigger joke (if that is possible) of this "person of the year" debacle.

Given the obvious contradiction between the awards of 2006 and 2008 (nihilism and delusion versus meaning and truth, respectively), I am not quite sure what this award is really about. I have no problem with the idea of the Pope being recognised as 'Person of the Year', if the award is simply a gauge of 'impact'. B16 certainly gets people talking!

As for the lack of democratic choice: well, who would then select the electors? And on what basis?

I think it's a fair choice, but as I say, what does this award really mean anyway?

Could Caligula have acted so monstrously - will Cardinal Law win some award in February?

It is certainly a great kick in the teeth to last year's winners and to the great many victims who have suffered at the hands of Catholic paedophile priests.

It has been expressed before on this blog that William has been working hard of late. Readers will draw their own conclusions, but the need to refresh and replenish must always be an important consideration.

Whilst it states that the person may be a hero or a villain - there is, in one's mind, an association between an 'award' or vote for 'person of the year' with some sort of reward or accolade for their activities/achievements etc. Hence why some dislike the outcome of the vote. Whilst that may not be the intention that is how it comes across - that the Pope is being 'rewarded', promoted, acknowledged in some way by this vote - being given a vote of confidence so to speak. The thing is - is dominating news coverage a worthy consideration in itself?? Might as well give it to Katie Price. She's probably had more media coverage than the Pope and can stir up a bit of controversy!

Initially, my choice would have been Aung San Suu Kyi, because she spent so long under house arrest,but then, maybe she was only released as she's no longer a threat, rather than any pressure the military junta felt to release her.

I think in terms of real impact- for sweeping away all the double-speak and propoganda, the award should really have gone to Julian Assange. Many of the revelations didn't shock me, but I found it reassuring that alot of the views expressed privately are more normal and logical than the scripted versions.

Benedict is a disappointment as Person of the Year. Personally, i felt obliged to talk about him because i found him reprehensible, rather than wanting to talk about him. I guess as LSV says if the award is just to guage "impact",then ok, but it's depressing to think his visit to the UK was viewed as a success. The media response caused additional pain & distress to some -by smoothing over his visit and using their best PR spin. It was insulting and disrespectful to those who have been affected by the Church, as if all the Churchs and Popes wrong doing on abuse is irrelevant and meaningless.

Also plenty of normal,productive,reasonable citizens felt insulted by the media fawning of his visit- their lives are denegrated & reduced to the mere sex act and are effectively made pariah's by the Church (oh the irony).

The powers that be should hang their heads in shame. They who thought it better to treat his visit like an Oprah inspired emotional Disney Parade ,when Spain, for example, treated his visit with much more realism. It's unhelpful to gloss over someone who's impact is so destructive and divisive

Totally shocked, William. I have spent hundreds of hours writing on here attempting to bring to light some of the unpallatable 'truths' about this man. He has a massive and very powerful PR team representing him, spinning for him. He has some of the richest and most powerful people on the planet punting for him.

For decades, us who have had no voice have attempted to be heard and have been victimised over and over again by this man.

You need to apologise.

I think people are doing exactly as Will said - confusing Person of the Year with Hero of the Year.

Time magazine does a similiar thing and has given Adolf Hilter, Josef Stalin and Ayatollah Khomeini the 'award'.

I might disagree with the Pope's selection; if you ignore his visit to the UK (as I did) and take his participation in the ongoing child abuse saga out of it, he's just been a fairly unremarkable religious leader clinging onto the vestiges of power. However, because of both of those events, he's been fairly high profile this year.

In longer term effects, other people would've been far more important. But that's not what it's about, is it?

Greetings from Rome and a happy 2011 to all of you! Rachel and I are enjoying the eternal city for a week. If there had been a physical prize attached to the title William, I could have delivered it to Benny in person on Tuesday, when we have reserved tickets for a visit to the Heart of Darkness.

And talking of the Catholic church (and how it lavishes money on itself), I must say many of the churches here that we have visited so far are quite magnificently decorated. I much disapprove of their purpose, and the artistic embellishments can be a bit over the top, but much of it is absolutely very beautiful. And to be preferred over the Capuchin crypt, the somewhat macabre crypt where the skulls and bones of many generations of monks are piled up or hanging from the ceiling as parts of lamps.

One bit of good the Catholic church did here was the side effect of their annexation of many temples and artefacts of gods of antiquity. The ones they took over they kept in good shape. So the Pantheon etc are still with us. Unlike parts of the Colosseum or the many buildings of the Roman Forum that were quarried for stones to build St. Peter.

Anyways, on the subject of this thread, I'm a bit surprised to read some of the responses to Williams choice. I didn't listen to SS this morning, but unless William praised Benny straight into heaven, I can't see what's wrong with the choice. It was clearly stated that the title is about impact etc., not an endorsement. See bits in Williams text of this thread, "Which man, woman or child has most inspired us, challenged us, impressed, infuriated, or simply pre-occupied us in the past twelve months? The person, in short, who will be forever associated with this year." and even "It could be a hero or a villain.". So sorry RJB etc., but to me it seems the pope was definitively the right choice.

I won't pretend to be among the most aggrieved people in respect of this choice, but i can see that, according to the criteria you were looking at, Christopher Hitchens, for example, might have been a viable option. Being reminded of his inimitable and apparently honest approach on the TV yesterday evening, i actually hope he might still be alive and a contender for next year's award.

Would like to mention that i tuned in just before 'Sunday Sequence' yesterday to hear the strains of Billy Joel coming over the airwaves, and couldn't help thinking there was a message for Pope Benedict;
"Don't go changin', to try to please [anyone]...[we] love you just the way you are..."

To nominate the NI executive members as Person(s) of the year is to reward them for doing the job they are elected and paid to do - except that they do not do it. The current water crisis is an example - why did they wait so long to meet and discuss it -and then display their total ineffectiveness.
It is disgraceful and dishonourable that NO ONE from among their ranks has had the courage and strength of character to effectively deal with this situation - rather, they have blamed other people for not doing their jobs and ignored the fact that the whole water infrastructure is totally outdated and has been badly in need of repair since before the first Executive in 1998.
They do not have the political courage to introduce water charges - they don't care about Northern Ireland's problems half as much as they care about their votes.
Yet despite all this ONE OF YOUR CONTRIBUTORS PROPOSES THAT THEY DESERVE THE TITLE "PERSON(S) OF THE YEAR"!!! What nonsense

p.s. What happened about Minister Forde's promises of an immediate and thorough investigation into the inappropriate release of prisoners some 6 plus weeks ago? We have heard nothing about it! Does he hope that the N I Water debacle will overshadow it and that we will all forget about it?

lol Theo, you getting a little psychotic there, hearing messages for the Pope in songs on the radio :p

terrymulholland,

I think you are missing the point. It is an award not a reward and as such could go to the most evil and vitriolic person on the planet or the most virtuous depending on which had the biggest impact during the year. The winner could also be both depending on how the voter was impacted by the winner.

Theophane and I might agree on the winner, but for very different reasons.

Dave,

But terrymulholland used CAPS LOCK!!!, therefore it must be more serious.

Don't you get it?!

Natman,

I had forgotten about the inerrancy of CAPS LOCK! and indeed it's overriding importance and gravitas. Twas remiss of me not to bow down to it's weightiness. Please forgive me.

Dave, Natman

Just a small point; the inductive argument that terrymulholland used capslock seems to me to overlook a feasible alternative, namely holding shift and typing.

And since, unless terry reveals it to us (even then how can we be sure?), we cannot tell which method he used all we can really say is that he used uppercase letters.

Twas remiss of the two of you to start preening yourselves before getting this straight.

Pope Benedict was a great choice. Congratulations Sunday Sequence! His Scotish/English visit showed the real man - a true Christian and those complaining because they belong to a reformed tradition should read Scott Hahn's book 'Rome Sweet Home' - the story of how the Holy Spirit changed Scott's anti-Catholic views. A great read!

those complaining because they belong to a reformed tradition should read Scott Hahn's book 'Rome Sweet Home' - the story of how the Holy Spirit changed Scott's anti-Catholic views. A great read!

Of course, that's a rather generous reading of how Hahn changed his views.

Andrew,

terrymulholland was also guilty of EPS (excessive punctuation syndrome), another, sadly often seen, affliction on the internets.

And if one types holding the shift key, then that implies a fairly slow typist and I was giving terrymulholland the benefit of the doubt in that regard.

Andrew,

I believe he was using the CAPS LOCK and that is all the proof I need, it is up to you to prove he wasn't.

Roisin Gottschalk,

It is amazing how one event can be seen so diametrically opposed by two people.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Pope Palpatine got person of the year? The old Jedi mind trick still works then, or was it simply sympathy for the devil? Old Stones tunes about non-existent beings aside, Benny's wistful and ultimately pointless attacks of verbal dihorrea during his UK visit made for great TV and rekindled the debate about religions relevance, so I suppose he was a prime candidate. I found great comfort in the fact that the Invisble Friend Gang felt enough fear of non-believers, science and reason that it was important to target and attack with pitiful weasel words.
Aggressive secularism, or 'secularism' as most know it, has found its voice over the past few years and grows ever louder. If only the media had given more time and space to the voices of the victims of benny's boys and shed a bit of light on the realities of the man and what he represents, he might have received up his award in his prison cell. Congrats Pope B...

So it seems that we were all mistaken in thinking that Person of the Year was some kind of an accolade. Declaring J Ratzinger 'Person of the Year' is not to be taken as an endorsement of anything he has done, it is merely recognising the fact that he has 'dominated the media'.

Well, in that case, why bother asking people for nominations, if the answer has nothing to do their estimation of someone's qualities? If the correct answer is based simply on column inches and minutes of air-time, why bother to canvass nominations? It doesn't make sense. If the award is about acreage of media coverage, then get some media researchers on the job to give an accurate report of who really did dominate the year - though it is hard to see what the point of the exercise would be, since the result does not represent approval, or praise, or anything like that.

Imagine a newspaper asking people to nominate their 'Book of the Year' (as many of them do) and then saying,"No, we are not interested in accolades. We are only referring to total sales." The nominations would be a total waste of time.

Ratzinger as Person of the Year? After a year in which the Vatican has treated the Murphy Commission with arrogance and contempt? When victims of paedophile priests have gone to Rome with their families and have not been given a hearing? When the Murphy Report complained of obduracy and lack of co-operation from the Catholic hierarchy? When Cardinal Brady admitted that he had sworn victims to silence, but did not tell the police about a child rapist on the loose? Etc, etc.

I am appalled that the award should go to Ratzinger and that the attempt to justify that choice should be so craven. A very low ebb.

Thank you, Phil, my sentiments exactly.

"...we are a Christian culture, we come from a Christian culture and not to know the King James Bible, is to be in some small way, barbarian".

Professor Richard Dawkins; King James Bible-basher!

Actually the above comment is a silly jibe, and i regret any offence it could cause. It might help to raise an important question though. In western societies like ours, are we content only with a "Christian legacy"; and how long might such a legacy retain any influence? Isn't Christianity itself the only guarantor for the preservation of Christian principles? Maybe i'm on the wrong thread...

Theophane,

If people wish to preserve christian principles for themselves then that is fine and dandy but I fail to see why you think it deserves to have any influence given how objectionable and discriminatory some of it's principles are. I personally find some of the teachings and principles offensive.

I am not a christian and have no need for, or need to be influenced by, christian principles or legacy.

If you think we as a society have some duty to preserve christian legacy then I think you are mistaken, it is not for society to preserve peoples personal beliefs or be biased toward any particular one.

The other issue of course is that you would never be able to decide on what christian principles were as you cannot even decide amongst yourselves what denomination of christianity is correctly following your christ, in fact none of you may be. I'll not get into the other slight problem of the fact that christianity is as true or false as any other religion.

Christianity has encouraged many offshoots that preserve Christian principles, from the Enlightenment, to Humanism ,to the proliferation of human rights groups and champions of freedom and democracy in the Western World.The freedoms many struggled for in the West are born out of the Christian tradition. There are branches of Christianity that hold a great deal of relevance today in the modern world, such as moderate Anglicanism and Unitarian Universalism- with their emphasis on inclusiveness, acceptance and personal freedom within a moral and spiritually loving framework. Perhaps fundamendalist branches of Christianity in Europe are on the wane. Maybe you'd find the various medieval religious outlooks in the States more suited to your tastes @ Theo ;)

Ryan_,

I think you may well be right. I certainly see more christianity (as I understand the principles of it) outside the church than within it. They don't see themselves as christian in the main, at least not all the divine mumbo jumbo, but if you looked at what the main tenets of the faith they espouse them better than the god botherers. There are some pockets of christian principles left within as you mention but many of them are looked on with disdain by the rest. Even moderate Anglicanism is hardly flavour of the month in Africa or within the evangelical right in the US (or within the hierarchy of catholocism for that matter).

The problem is that much of the christian religious organisation has become the Pharisees of 2000 years ago and the humanists, secularists, rights activists and some small denominations are the ones looking after the oppressed and marginalised. It is a complete reversal of christianity surely when the religion marginalises people by it's own teaching.