A TIME TO GROAN -- At Time Magazine's 100 Most Influential People

ICONOCLAST ^ | By Marni Soupcoff

[Apolitical]

The other day, Time magazine released its list of the 100 most influential people in the world. If you haven't already seen this strange document, I urge you to take a look if for no other reason than that it may be your only chance to see the Dalai Lama and the producer of Survivor mentioned in the same piece of text.

The list, which this year reads as though it were compiled by a reality-television-watching terrorist sports fan with a high-tech-heavy stock portfolio, was never a very good idea to begin with. Trying to rank everyone on the earth based on his or her sway and power is far too subjective and arrogant an exercise to ever yield good results. One man's schlockmeister film producer is another man's entertainment giant (which I suppose explains Jerry "Kangaroo Jack" Bruckheimer's inclusion in the Time list despite the permanent damage he caused those of us who sat through Pearl Harbor).

But even given the futility and difficulty of the task, Time has managed to come up with a particularly bizarre catalog of celebrities, academics, and rich people whom it believes are influencing the populace. I mean, much as we love his catty comments, do any of us really believe that "American Idol" judge Simon Cowell (who is on the list) is more influential than, say, British Prime Minister Tony Blair (who is not)? And if this is the case, why did the British contribution to the war in Iraq involve sending troops rather than sending caustic telegrams asking Saddam if he's tone deaf? ....

[Apolitical]

The world's 100 most influential people as decided by the world's must biased and uninfluential magazine (aside from Newsweek).

[IronJack]

O'Reilly already tore this absurd list apart. He took special exception to the inclusion of Nicole Kidman. And I don't blame him.

But I'd never read a Times "Top Ten" anything for any purposes other than sheer amusement.

[isthisnickcool]

100 most influential people????

George, Cheney, Condi, Rummy, Rush, Jim Robinson, etc....

[Luis Gonzalez]

Where did they rate TLBSHOW?

[UB355]

By what criteria can Rush Limbaugh be left off. A 600 station audience and the birth of modern talk radio would seem to qualify him. Like him or not

[mlmr]

Along with yours...Dr Laura, Michelle Malkin, Thomas Sowell,

[IronJack]

Where did they rate TLBSHOW?

Just under Pee Wee Herman.

[Migraine]

Hey, Al Haig.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Just under Pee Wee Herman."

Yeah, but were they still in the movie theater at the time?

[GATOR NAVY]

At the end of the day, though, the "Most influential 100 List" is very good at doing one important thing: capturing the values and principles of the magazine's staff. Which may be a useful reminder to many of us of why we don't count ourselves amongst those who have chosen to be influenced by Time.

Yep

[Spotsy]

The list is lame.

Nonetheless, O'Reilly's first complaint is that he is not on it.

[Lawgvr1955]

Back in the late 70's and 80's I subscribed to Newsweek and couldn't get through the week without it. Slowly I realized that it was biased, etc. To this date I refuse any attempt from Newsweek or Time for a subscription, either at home or the office, regardless of the fact that they offer to send it for pennies. To Haides with them I say.

[browsin]

I think the list is reasonably fair,with a few exceptions(including no Tony Blair).I heard Rush slam the inclusion of Nicole Kidman and Norah Jones,he mustnt know much about the movie or music business if he thinks they arent extremely influential on a worldwide scale....both probably in a positive way.He says he wasnt included because he is influential....but realistically has anybody outside of North America even heard of him let alone be influenced?

[GATOR NAVY]

I also stopped subscribing many years ago. Every once in a while I pick one in a waiting room somewhere and I'm reminded I made a good choice. Actually, most of the time just looking at the cover in the checkout line reminds me I made a good choice.

[IronJack]

O'Reilly's first complaint is that he is not on it.

There's probably a lot of truth in that.

[ConservativeStLouisGuy]

The other day, Time magazine released its list of the 100 most influential people in the world. If you haven't already seen this strange document, I urge you to take a look if for no other reason than that it may be your only chance to see the Dalai Lama and the producer of Survivor mentioned in the same piece of text.

The list, which this year reads as though it were compiled by a reality-television-watching terrorist sports fan with a high-tech-heavy stock portfolio, was never a very good idea to begin with. Trying to rank everyone on the earth based on his or her sway and power is far too subjective and arrogant an exercise to ever yield good results. One man's schlockmeister film producer is another man's entertainment giant (which I suppose explains Jerry "Kangaroo Jack" Bruckheimer's inclusion in the Time list despite the permanent damage he caused those of us who sat through Pearl Harbor).

But even given the futility and difficulty of the task, Time has managed to come up with a particularly bizarre catalog of celebrities, academics, and rich people whom it believes are influencing the populace. I mean, much as we love his catty comments, do any of us really believe that "American Idol" judge Simon Cowell (who is on the list) is more influential than, say, British Prime Minister Tony Blair (who is not)? And if this is the case, why did the British contribution to the war in Iraq involve sending troops rather than sending caustic telegrams asking Saddam if he's tone deaf?

Another puzzle: If the Time list is really just a ranking of individuals' authority and dominance rather than the bestowal of any kind of favorable endorsement, as the Time brass claim (and as one would hope is the case given the inclusion of terrorists Osama bin Laden and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi on the list), then why the over-the-top, fawning blather about each person who is mentioned?

Is it really necessary (or fair to delicate stomachs) for Time to liken Warren Buffet to both Joe DiMaggio and Mozart while calling Buffet "a manager who has mastered our monetary metier?"

And what about U2 front man Bono? Time calls him "a hero...not because he's a rock star, but because he is a rock star who is willing to spend time on things that are tedious and boring -- like long sessions with Senators and administration officials and meetings with the World Bank." Gee, by that definition of heroism, Alan Greenspan is a positive superman, but he didn't make the Time inventory. Guess they preferred Bono's shades.

When you come down to it, it's difficult to understand how the Time team did make their decisions.

Free-market types, including Peruvian economist Hernando DeSoto and Danish professor and Skeptical Environmentalist author Bjorn Lomborg, are listed as the world's most influential scientists and thinkers right alongside statists Bill and Hillary Clinton and the Earth Institute's U.S. Director.

If all of these folks really are the world's most influential people, then the world must be afflicted with one serious case of multiple personality disorder.

"Climate change is going to kill us all! Or maybe that's an exaggeration based on unrealistic models. On the other hand, I don't think the earth is going to be able to sustain the human race at this rate. Then again, maybe these predictions are all just computer-aided storytelling. I'm so confused."

More likely, the strange bedfellows on the list of influencers is just further evidence that Time is trying to measure something -- influence -- that just can't be measured. So while the list may be good for a few groans and laughs, it's not to be depended on as an accurate assessment of the world's idea-shapers.

This is probably a good thing. Much as I admire soft-spoken basketball player Yao Ming and yoga guru BKS Iyengar (whom Time designates two of the world's most influential heroes and icons), I'd hate to think that paranoid North Korean leader Kim Jong-il and Chinese vice premier Wu Yi (two of the most influential "leaders and revolutionaries") are really winning over the world's hearts and minds. The idea of Katie Couric and the Cirque-du-Soleil founder (whom Time named two of the world's most influential artists and entertainers) shaping the world's artistic tastes and sensibilities doesn't sit much better.

At the end of the day, though, the "Most influential 100 List" is very good at doing one important thing: capturing the values and principles of the magazine's staff. Which may be a useful reminder to many of us of why we don't count ourselves amongst those who have chosen to be influenced by Time.

_____________________________________

Apolitical,

Posted in full for posterity's sake.....

FReegards from Toronto,

ConservativeStLouisGuy

[IronJack]

Back in the late 70's and 80's I subscribed to Newsweek and couldn't get through the week without it.

Then you discovered that Charmin was cheaper, more absorbent, and didn't leave ink stains in your shorts?

[Lawgvr1955]

True. Charmin is more valuable than Time or Newsweek. (thanks for the laugh).