Asklemmy

The problem is, I think, abundance of quality - or the lack thereof. For all the research based prizes, there is enough stuff floating around the ether that you can pick something interesting and worth the prize to be awarded. Old Phil Physicist, not by accident a man, will get the prize for fundamental research into clockwise spinning protons and that helps us today with welding or something. Nobody but the experts understands this and we're okay with that.

And then Literature and Peace. They seem more subjective. Us non-labcoats have opinions on these ones. And thus the controversy likelihood is much higher.

Since they get awarded every year, it's become a fixture in media coverage. Like the New Year's ball drop, Carnival in Rio, the Pope urbi'ing et orbi'ing, Black Friday, etc. It's predictable news coverage.

I don't think they should stop it. Even the institutionalized reminder once a year that it's worth it working towards peace is not a bad thing. I think the prize has the most gravitas when it's awarded for long time services to peace on the books. Like giving it to the chemical weapons disposers, the red crescent/cross or even the EU, which has probably prevented more deaths from wars within than it has tolerated refugees drowning in the Med. They have done more good stuff for peace. It's tricky when they give it to people for more current achievements. Kissinger wasn't the peacemaker it looked like he was. Aung San Su Kyi was a great figurehead while under house arrest 1.0 - and arguably not great enough for the Rohingya when she was let out. Obama got it because they thought he wasn't Bush, and then he sent the drones. We want our laureates to be saints and it hurts when we find out they are just flawed humans.