I skimmed it looking at the pictures and looking for the criteria…didn’t find it.
One face in particular was conspicuous by its absense…for me anyway.
What criteria would you use ?
The goal of Time Magazine is to sell magazines to Americans, and lately it seems geared towards those Americans of less intelligence and sophistication. Consequently I’d expect the ‘Most Influential’ list to have an excess of well-known American media personalities and a shortage of foreigners, business people, religious leaders, and intellectuals.
Please tell me your linking to The Onion is a woosh.
Check out Joel Stein’s column in which he makes his own list: “I followed several rules that seem to govern the TIME 100. There had to be a lot more Americans than is historically warranted, I had to pile on as many minorities and women as possible, and I had to prove that some influential people are attractive movie stars. Also, I had to contact a brain trust of experts so that I could point to them if questioned about any of my choices.”
I’ve noticed that online magazines seem to be going for a blogger approach, with their writers. It’s fun to see them fighting each other, I guess.
Hu Jintao and Vladmir Putin were the two most conspicuous absences. Some of the entertainers were silly. Even if you accept the premise entertainers belong on the list, Claire Danes?
Wait, what? Claire Danes?
Claire Danes isn’t one of the 100 most influential people who live in greater Los Angeles.
That’s exactly what she wants you to think.
The list is ridiculous, of course, and I guess it’s just supposed to be feel-good crap designed to ensure that readers view as many advertisements as possible.
I mean, really. There’s at least one fashion designer on the list. Also a guy who owns a restaurant. And a girdle-maker. Plus plenty of entertainers and athletes (it strikes me as kind of insulting that the Secretary of State of the United States should be right next to an actress on the list).
It’s just silly.
Wow, that list was embarrassing. I didn’t realize TIME was quite so far down the road towards becoming the next People or US Weekly.
At the same time, I feel some sympathy for the editors. The magazine business is in dire straits, and they probably have pretty good reason for going this route - it probably sells better than anything serious, and push come to shove you have to do what you can to keep the lights on. 
While I’m sure linking to The Onion was a woosh, the video seems to hit the mark to me about time. They could do the same with Newsweek.
Kind of makes you wonder about their annual Person of the Year… if you didn’t already.
Everyone smart does, and has for some time.
I’m glad you’re working to join our ranks.
Egads! What a mish-mosh of people, most of whom I have never heard of.
How in the world can these editors place the girdle-maker in the same category as Warren Buffett? I mean, really y’all, this is ludicrous.
The Onion feature was more realistic.
I think someone at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation should write a letter to Time just to ask if Kristen Wiig’s position on the list is totally final and no further changes can be made, or if there’s an outside chance that spending billions of dollars to reduce HIV, build schools, vaccinate poor kids, establish microloan programs in developing countries, improve American libraries, and similar activities could be re-evaluated head-to-head with the movie “Bridesmaids.”
If these people are so influential, why haven’t I heard of most of them? Who are they influencing?
And really . . . Matt Lauer?
To be fair, a lot more Americans have seen “Bridesmaids” than have ever been to a library. All that other stuff is just for foreigners and doesn’t count.
Too many unfortunatley. As for what they are influencing… exactly what TIME wants them to.
Every so often, magazine editors get incredibly lazy and decide to fil up pages with pointless, meaningless lists.
It’s not just Time, obviously. How often do you see Rolling Stone doing a “100 Greatest Guitarists of All Time” issue, or Sports Illustrated with a “100 Greatest Baseball Players of All Time”," orr People issuing a “50 Sexiest Stars” issue? Same thing.
And these lists are ALWAYS silly. They’re always filled with people who are either:
-
So obvious that you wonder why they bothered. Do we REALLY need Sports Illustrated to tell us Babe Ruth was the greatest baseball player of all time?
-
Totally unqualified, but required by political correctness- like when Rolling Stone tries to pretend Joan Jett and Joni Mitchell belong on the Greatest Guitarists list (“Cut us some slack, Astorian- we HAVE to put some women on the list, or we’ll never hear the end of it!”)
-
Favorites of the magazine’s target demographic group. Like him or hate him, Stephen Colbert gets lower ratings than Guy Fieri on Diners, Drive-Ins and Dives. Heck, he gets his butt kicked by ***Family Guy ***re-runs. There is no way he’s highly influential. He’s on the list solely because Time editors THINK he appeals to their readers.