Time's 100 most influential people of the year

**kfrost06** · 05-03-2007, 12:40 PM

NEW YORK - Heartthrob Leonardo DiCaprio and envelope-pushers Rosie O'Donnell and Sacha Baron Cohen are among the entertainment newsmakers on Time magazine's list of 100 people who shape the world.

The list of 100 most influential, on newsstands Friday, also includes Queen Elizabeth II, presidential hopefuls Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama YouTube founders Steve Chen and Chad Hurley, director Martin Scorsese and model Kate Moss. It does not include President Bush.

In a piece she wrote for the magazine, Barbara Walters, the creator of "The View," had kind words to say about O'Donnell, who announced last week she was leaving the ABC talk show in June because she and the network couldn't agree on a new contract.

"And so, last September, we began a thrilling roller-coaster ride," Walters wrote. "We followed Rosie's passion and compassion, her feuds and fearlessness, her humanity and humor."

Walters said she and O'Donnell "remain respectful and affectionate friends."

Roseanne Barr weighed in on Baron Cohen, also known as Borat. "He does offend some people's sensibilities, but the youth of today are offended if they're not offended," she wrote.

Scorsese, who often casts DiCaprio in his films, praised the 32-year-old screen idol/activist as a "true actor."

"DiCaprio is another guy a lot of us underestimated as a pretty-boy type," Adi Ignatius, a ***uty managing editor at Time, told AP Television News.

The list includes 71 men and 29 women from 27 countries.

Other entertainers making the cut were Oprah Winfrey, George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Justin Timberlake, Tyra Banks, Cate Blanchett, America Ferrera,Tina Fey, John Mayer, Brian Williams, Michael J. Fox, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and "American Idol" creator Simon Fuller.

Separately, Time named 14 "power givers" such as Bill and Melinda Gates, Angelina Jolie and Queen Rania al-A**ullah of Jordan.

**kfrost06** · 05-03-2007, 12:43 PM

O.K. I am not a huge fan of President Bush but you have to admit, like him or not, he has had more influence on world events then say Tyra Banks. To think that liberals call Fox news biased but of course the rest of the media is impartial.

**mcpeepants** · 05-03-2007, 01:13 PM

Didn't time also name everybody as "the person of year" by puting a reflective surface on the cover of there magazine. that's was a pretty stupid idea.

**RamyGras** · 05-03-2007, 03:02 PM

Originally Posted by kfrost06

O.K. I am not a huge fan of President Bush but you have to admit, like him or not, he has had more influence on world events then say Tyra Banks. To think that liberals call Fox news biased but of course the rest of the media is impartial.

So, if you aren't Fox News, you're automatically liberal? Even Fox News viewers that I know admit that it's biased. They are simply pleased that somebody has the "bells" to call it the way they see it. There's a reason that conservatives are more keen to watch Fox News....it's not a frickin' coincidence.

Do I think that President Bush should've been on the list of 100 Most Influential? You're damn right. He should've been on the top of that list.

**Logan13** · 05-03-2007, 07:20 PM

Originally Posted by RamyGras

So, if you aren't Fox News, you're automatically liberal? Even Fox News viewers that I know admit that it's biased. They are simply pleased that somebody has the "bells" to call it the way they see it. There's a reason that conservatives are more keen to watch Fox News....it's not a frickin' coincidence.

Do I think that President Bush should've been on the list of 100 Most Influential? You're damn right. He should've been on the top of that list.

2 sides to that coin.
Either Fox is conservatively biased
OR
Other networks are liberally biased, which makes Fox seem biased in the other direction.
If one room is all blue and the other room has some blue and some red, is it accurate to say that the red and blue room is biased towards red since the other room has none?

**RamyGras** · 05-03-2007, 07:39 PM

Originally Posted by Logan13

2 sides to that coin.
Either Fox is conservatively biased
OR
Other networks are liberally biased, which makes Fox seem biased in the other direction.
If one room is all blue and the other room has some blue and some red, is it accurate to say that the red and blue room is biased towards red since the other room has none?

Are you claiming that Fox News is a red/blue room while the other networks are all blue? Because that can't be right. But to answer your question, no. The red/blue room has a more balanced view, and the blue room shouldn't really be taken seriously since there is only one side to the argument.

It seems to me that if a network doesn't fully support Republicans, it's considered liberal. I watch Fox News. I watch CNN. I watch the networks. And, I've never seen a channel so one-sided like I have in Fox News. If I were conservative, I'd absolutely love it. It's nice to hear that your thoughts and views are "absolutely correct". If I were liberal, I'd probably hate it. I don't care either way. But I do recognize that Fox is a "conservative" channel. The whole nation recognizes it. Even the conservatives. They love it.

My question to you, Logan, is do you really think that Fox News is less biased than the "other networks"?

**maxex** · 05-03-2007, 07:49 PM

Originally Posted by mcpeepants

Didn't time also name everybody as "the person of year" by puting a reflective surface on the cover of there magazine. that's was a pretty stupid idea.

Is that right? In that case for my next job interview I will put in the awards/acomplishments box that I was time magazine person of the year in 2007.

**Logan13** · 05-03-2007, 09:23 PM

a bunch of libs voting for a bunch of libs.........

**Prada** · 05-03-2007, 10:06 PM

As much as I dislike Bush and find him utmost incompetent and question his noetic capacity perpetually. He is the president of the USA, no way he cannot be influential.

**gixxerboy1** · 05-04-2007, 08:11 AM

Originally Posted by kfrost06

O.K. I am not a huge fan of President Bush but you have to admit, like him or not, he has had more influence on world events then say Tyra Banks. To think that liberals call Fox news biased but of course the rest of the media is impartial.

Bush has more power not influence. If Tyra Banks on her show says that this new designer is the must have for the summer there will be a 1000 girls at the mall tomorrow. That's influence. Bush can force millions of people to do stuff. But he makes them do it with his power not his influence,

**Logan13** · 05-04-2007, 09:30 AM

Originally Posted by RamyGras

Are you claiming that Fox News is a red/blue room while the other networks are all blue? Because that can't be right. But to answer your question, no. The red/blue room has a more balanced view, and the blue room shouldn't really be taken seriously since there is only one side to the argument.

It seems to me that if a network doesn't fully support Republicans, it's considered liberal. I watch Fox News. I watch CNN. I watch the networks. And, I've never seen a channel so one-sided like I have in Fox News. If I were conservative, I'd absolutely love it. It's nice to hear that your thoughts and views are "absolutely correct". If I were liberal, I'd probably hate it. I don't care either way. But I do recognize that Fox is a "conservative" channel. The whole nation recognizes it. Even the conservatives. They love it.

My question to you, Logan, is do you really think that Fox News is less biased than the "other networks"?

I'll answer your question with a question. If it is so biased, why has it become the #1 cable news channel, recording an audience larger than CNN and MSNBC combined? Air America was obviously slanted to the left, but they just could not garner a large enough audience to stay in the black. Perhaps this just further illustrates that Fox is such a hit because it mirrors the ideaology shared by the vast majority of Americans. Far-left kooks are much more vocal than the mainstream, and they are the only ones whining about Fox since it interferes with the achievement of their agenda.

**singern** · 05-04-2007, 02:48 PM

Originally Posted by Logan13

2 sides to that coin.
Either Fox is conservatively biased
OR
Other networks are liberally biased, which makes Fox seem biased in the other direction.
If one room is all blue and the other room has some blue and some red, is it accurate to say that the red and blue room is biased towards red since the other room has none?

I must be color blind, because I get my news from Fox, cnn, bbc, AlJezera, Jerusalem Post, USAToday..........News is News, the only difference is Fox has the integrity to call a terrorist a terrorist, where others find it necessary to label them "freedom fighter"

In Hebrew we say "same woman different position"

**RamyGras** · 05-04-2007, 04:53 PM

Originally Posted by Logan13

I'll answer your question with a question. If it is so biased, why has it become the #1 cable news channel, recording an audience larger than CNN and MSNBC combined? Air America was obviously slanted to the left, but they just could not garner a large enough audience to stay in the black. Perhaps this just further illustrates that Fox is such a hit because it mirrors the ideaology shared by the vast majority of Americans. Far-left kooks are much more vocal than the mainstream, and they are the only ones whining about Fox since it interferes with the achievement of their agenda.

I never questioned that it is #1. And, I do think that a lot of people share the ideology that Fox News provides. There's no argument here. However, even with the question-answer, you still avoided the question completely. I usually have a problem swallowing Fox News medicine, but I watch it because it's so darn intriguing.

I don't know if you have seen the Howard Stern film "Private Parts", and I hate to use this film as a "source", but bare with me. The film showed that the ratings of Stern's show were through the roof, with the vast majority of his listeners, those who couldn't stand him. Not only that, but they were more likely to listen to him for a longer period of time. Fox News is a phenomenon, but that doesn't mean it's biased.

Now, the question I asked is do you think the Fox News Channel is not biased?

**Hoggage_54** · 05-04-2007, 06:03 PM

Originally Posted by RamyGras

I never questioned that it is #1. And, I do think that a lot of people share the ideology that Fox News provides. There's no argument here. However, even with the question-answer, you still avoided the question completely. I usually have a problem swallowing Fox News medicine, but I watch it because it's so darn intriguing.

I don't know if you have seen the Howard Stern film "Private Parts", and I hate to use this film as a "source", but bare with me. The film showed that the ratings of Stern's show were through the roof, with the vast majority of his listeners, those who couldn't stand him. Not only that, but they were more likely to listen to him for a longer period of time. Fox News is a phenomenon, but that doesn't mean it's biased.

Now, the question I asked is do you think the Fox News Channel is not biased?

You're absolutly right. I sometimes find myself watching Glenn Beck, even though I disagree with a lot of what he says. I can't help watching sometimes because some of the things he says are so stupid I am actually lau***ng out loud sometimes. It's entertainment, plain and simple. Americans do not want to be reminded about the horrors of war. They want the former NFL football star kicking Afghani's asses. They want the cute chick shooting every last bullet she had at Iraqi soldiers. It makes for good television.