Anyone paying attention to the new pope thing?
- Thread starter farmkid
- Start date
Regarding the earlier post about how often Papal conclaves are held to elect a new Pope, the last twelve Pontiffs starting with Gregory XVI (1831-46) have each served an average of about 15 years, with the longest-ever reign by an elected Pope being that of Pius IX, who served for almost 32 straight years from 1846 until 1878.
---
---
---
I can't speak to how media coverage is in other countries, so I'll only answer the OP's question from my American perspective.
The answer has to be in between tsq's and DN's answer on the one hand and junxon's answer on the other.
China has a population comparable to the membership of the Catholic Church—probably greater, in fact—but the change happening right now in China's leadership, with Xi Jinping, having ascended to head the Communist Party of China last November, now expected to become head of state this month, is hardly a blip on the American media's radar. If the level in media coverage were determined solely by population size of those directly affected plus the level of influence in geopolitics, then the change in China's leadership should arguably be getting at least as much coverage as the papacy.
Since reporters will generally dig as deep as it takes to get a story, if they believe the story is professionally worth their while, I don't believe that easy availability of information is the determining factor here.
The significance of a new pope in terms of its level of influence cannot be denied, but to get the rest of the way to explain the seemingly disproportionate level of media coverage, I think that pomp must have something to do with it, and bling, but also cultural heritage. To a much greater degree than China, the Catholic Church is intertwined with European culture, and Americans do tend to wax nostalgic about their European cultural heritage. Plus, I suspect that most Americans are more comfortable thinking about the Catholic Church than thinking about China; I believe that the media outlets would rather give people something they're predisposed to consume than to challenge them.
If the Chinese people were well distributed across the face of the Earth, and Mister Xi was still to be their leader, and his selection was to be a surprise to many, then you likely would have seen more interest in his rise to his current position.
Mister Xi's rise was slow and methodical, and each gain in power and position was hardly a surprise.
This is more like if the American President was being selected by a handful of senior congressmen behind closed doors, and there were twenty-some equally viable candidates.
This is more like if the American President was being selected by a handful of senior congressmen behind closed doors, and there were twenty-some equally viable candidates.
...and Americans were spread out all over the world rather than mostly in one country.
Well, if what you are saying explains why China's political transition is hardly being covered by American media, then I would have to conclude that most Americans already know Xi's name and can cough it up unprompted. But I really doubt that.If the Chinese people were well distributed across the face of the Earth, and Mister Xi was still to be their leader, and his selection was to be a surprise to many, then you likely would have seen more interest in his rise to his current position.
Mister Xi's rise was slow and methodical, and each gain in power and position was hardly a surprise.
This is more like if the American President was being selected by a handful of senior congressmen behind closed doors, and there were twenty-some equally viable candidates.
All this is beside the point anyway. My main point was that the American media are being very selective in which events of global import they choose to cover. That's hardly an eyebrow-raising idea, and I don't see that you really offered anything to contradict it.
I simply offered an example to support that idea with similar, though not identical, parameters.
It is not the presence of American boots on the ground that accounts for the influence anymore, to paraphrase the President on 1600 Penn. "I have robots that roam the Earth"This is more like if the American President was being selected by a handful of senior congressmen behind closed doors, and there were twenty-some equally viable candidates.
...and Americans were spread out all over the world rather than mostly in one country.
About the news coverage. Before the retirement announcement your local reporter may have known about the local Catholic Bishop. Minutes afterwards he is handicapping the horse race of the influence of the Cardinals worldwide.
That seagull perched atop the Sistine chimney probably has its own Twitter and Facebook accounts by now.
Sweet.
Sweet.
I, for one, welcome our new Papal Seagull overlord.
He's gone, now, though. Probably got tired of waiting.
He's gone, now, though. Probably got tired of waiting.
A
Amaris
Guest
Pope Steven II, maybe?
White smoke. That was quick, wasn't it?
It took five ballots to get a winner, the most in over 100 years. This might get very interesting.
And the world is enpoped once more.
You understood correctly. His choice of name is a good start!
Pope Francis I? Encouraging.
I'm an ex-Catholic but am very fascinated by Vatican culture and politics. Of course, I'm following.
can someone explain the significance of Francis to this former heathen?
Similar threads
