I was shocked today to notice that Time Magazine... which claims to be a hard news organization posted their list of 100 most "influential people" and I will see if any of you can guess some of the world leaders who were NOT on the list.
And can anyone explain why Kate Moss is so important?
Oh yea... The two world leaders who didn't make the top 100?
George Bush
Vladimir Putin
just to NOT name a few.
Is there really any wonder why the 20 somethings are so clueless in todays world with this and Comedy Central serving to inform?
Originally posted by StarValleyWyHow did they measure what was influential and what was not?
I was shocked today to notice that Time Magazine... which claims to be a hard news organization posted their list of 100 most "influential people" and I will see if any of you can guess some of the world leaders who were NOT on the list.
And can anyone explain why Kate Moss is so important?
Oh yea... The two world leaders who didn't make the top ...[text shortened]... 20 somethings are so clueless in todays world with this and Comedy Central serving to inform?
Originally posted by shavixmirTime is a propaganda wing of the Soros mob. I'm not sure that your question has meaning when propaganda is involved. I rather think that this is just a continuation of the "dumbing down" of the world so that chaos can reign. Again.
How did they measure what was influential and what was not?
Here is a link to the crap. Let me know if you can find out anything useful as to what they are trying to do.
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=060c9616-0ac9-41d9-8048-3cac8d09d2b6&k=74563
Was anyone from the editorial staff of TIME on the list? If not, we can ignore it, because it isn't very influential 😉.
More seriously, I don't think the problem is entirely with the list. The problem is that someone like Kate Moss is very influential, by motivating the spending of vast quantities of money.
Also, while news sources like TIME are quite influential, it must be remembered that because the are businesses, the entities which give us the news see us as members of a market, not people in need of information, so in keeping with proper business principles, they literally tell us what we want to hear. Being in the business of appealing to the largest market possible is clearly incompatible with reporting everything worth knowing and not reporting things unworthy of comment. Thus the inadequacies of the news media reflect the narrowness of the range of subject matter which can be sold to the public at a profit -- the fact that public discourse in the context of the mainstream media can largely be broken down into Killing, Political Posturing, The Exploits of People Who Get Paid to Play Games, The Exploits of People Who Get Paid to Exploit People and Things in Other Parts of the Media is a reflection of the state of the public, not the state of the media. The fact that TIME has bothered posting some dross about who is influential according to some dubious metric is thus nothing more than a cynical acknowledgement of the sad fact that the public cares. Incidentally, this is the same phenomenon which allows many of those people to be influential in the first place.