Time's flawed "100 most influential"
 

If the 100 most influential Americans doesn't include Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity, something is wrong.

Sure, LeBron James may influence more sneaker buyers, but so what?

Re: Time's flawed "100 most influential"
 

Lebron is the biggest basketball star since MJ, and what he's doing at his age is unreal. People aren't only wearing his NBA jersey, but also his HIGH SCHOOL jersey, which is being sold at many Nike stores. He's label unto himself.

Rush Limbaugh may be popular, but is he all that influential? Is he bringing more people to his mode of thinking?

The great thing about these lists is that there are always going to be disagreements about the contents.

Rush Limbaugh screwed himself over with all that oxycontin stuff...

As for Sean Hannity, i've never even heard of him, lol. I had to google him to get any idea of who he was, so he's obviously not all that influential.

But any list is subjective, there's no objective way of ranking influence. Just like People's 50 most beautiful people ;)

Re: Re: Time's flawed "100 most influential"
 

Rush was beyond influential actually in the Republican party. In fact many credit Rush et al. for creating a very strong media army to help conservatives and he was courted very heavily in the 90s because of it. Of course that was the 90s and not now.

Lebron is a basketball star. Big whoop. What is he changing or influencing?

-Rudey

Re: Time's flawed "100 most influential"
 

It's not necessarily "political" influence, chief - and even then, Rush is old news. I don't know a single person of political influence who takes his ideas seriously.

Re: Re: Re: Time's flawed "100 most influential"
 

I don't disagree that he was extremely influential - as you said though, that was in the 90s, and his influence peaked during the time you're referencing. You're absolutely correct though, he may have been the most influential political figure at that time.

As far as Lebron - I think his influence lies in the fact that he is what's "next." He's succeeding Jordan as the next big sports star, but at the same time he's going beyond what Jordan did at the same age. Besides Tiger, there's not another American athlete that can compete with Lebron's name recognition and marketing influence.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Time's flawed "100 most influential"
 

Lance Armstrong.

-Rudey

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Time's flawed "100 most influential"
 

Can't believe I forgot him...although I'd venture to say Lebron is more marketable because of the sport he plays. There just aren't as many people interested in bicycle sports.

I will say, though, I'd be shocked if Lance wasn't on the list as well.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Time's flawed "100 most influential"
 

But how is he influential? There are a lot of very famous celebrities that are much more well known than he is domestically and internationally so I don't think it's about fame.

-Rudey

Re: Time's flawed "100 most influential"
 

I must admit, Rush did influence my thoughts that it might be fun to abuse prescription drugs then claim to be a victim who needs love and rehab while saying others who do so should go to jail.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Time's flawed "100 most influential"
 

This is America, Land of the Obese. Armstrong Lycra/Spandex biker shorts are not in high demand here.
ETA: I'm not sure I would want an artificial testicle called "The Armstrong"

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Time's flawed "100 most influential"
 

With the troubles Kobe Bryant has had, Lebron has become the new face of a league that needed a new superstar to step up to the plate. He's saved the franchise in Cleveland and has renewed the NBA's popularity.

The fact that he's THE face of the sport, and one of the faces of all sports I think merits his inclusion on the list. He's helped influence a perception that the league is alive and well (especially in light of the recent NHL lockout).

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Time's flawed "100 most influential"
 

Personally I think a guy like Yao Ming bringing a couple million Chinese fans over to the NBA is much more influential.

-Rudey

Perhaps the "influential" part is supposed to mean worldwide? I would say worldwide between the two, Lebron James is better known than Lance, at least the areas I've been to.

Regardless, I believe they're both very influential.

If wonder if we might substitute the word(s) "well known" for "influential.

Frankly, I wouldn't rank any "blow hard" media type (and you can take that a deep as you want) or sports icon in the top 100 when you consider the number of political leaders, scientists, doctors etc. who really do influence our daily lives.

Seems a tad superficial to me.

What areas are those?

-rudey

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Time's flawed "100 most influential"
 

I could imagine (and this is WAG, no time to look it up) that the average youth in the US cares more about what LeBron James has to say/sell/what he does than, say, the majority of politicos in Washington (or otherwise). Marketing influence is still influence - and I'm 90% sure that portions of the list exist just so we'll argue it like this.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Time's flawed "100 most influential"
 

Perhaps Lebron's agent and those who market him should be on that list then :)

Either way, as Dani said, the list is subjective so hey them's the apples and all that.

-Rudey

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Time's flawed "100 most influential"
 

True; I understand your counterpoints though, and that's the great thing about these lists. Many of the people are up for debate.

Re: Re: Time's flawed "100 most influential"
 

I think when the Bush administration wants to get a message out, they'll send Cheney, or Mary Madelin, or sometimes even "W", to appear on Rush's show. He has a tremendously large audience, and a lot of influence (although that is not his goal).

His goal, I think, is to spread information and to let the listeners decide.

You comment is like the CBS (?) reporter who said "How did Bush get elected? I don't know anyone who voted for him."

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Time's flawed "100 most influential"
 

Lance Armstong is extremely influential. Go out in public and look at everyones wrists. Could Rush Limbaugh do that?

Re: Re: Re: Time's flawed "100 most influential"
 

bullshit.

Rush, whether you like him or not, pretty much single handedly brought conservative radio to what it is today. He is extremely influential-maybe not with you, but he definitly is.

Also...how the hell do you NOT know who Sean Hannity is? That's like saying you don't know who your own Senators or House reps are.

Private I...Lebron is not even in the same league as Lance when it comes to being an athlete. On top of that Lance is much more well known worldwide than Lebron. It's theTour de France!

But how currently influential is Rush anymore? He lost a ton of credibility. This isn't a list of who was influential 10 years ago.

Why SHOULD I know who Sean Hannity is? How can a news anchor compare to my local representatives. I have no reason to know who he is or care. He does nothing for me.

This wasn't a list of the most influential CONSERVATIVES. If so, maybe he'd have a place.

There's another world out there outside of the conservative world.

I don't know who he is either.

So you do know who he is? :)

-Rudey

I know who Sean Hannity is, but only because I read Al Franken.

I don't have cable, my TV is tiny, and the only things I ever watch on television are Degrassi and the occasional episode of "The O.C."

There are many, many people who prefer to get their news from less biased sources than our friends Sean or Rush or, for that matter, Al or Michael. For that reason, I think that TV pundits' spheres of influence are much smaller than some of you think. The very fact that their main audience is limited to those who watch cable television (and then further limited to those who watch 24-hour news networks, and then limited again to those who like opinion-based shows, and then limited again to -- for the most part -- conservatives and perhaps moderates) will make their audience smaller than, say, Lebron James.

I don't think Hannity's audience is nearly as big as Rush's was at his peak, and I don't think Rush has very much influence at all anymore.

as I said earlier in the thread I had to google him to find out

Why?

-Rudey

Probably 'cause he doesn't appear on MTV or BET or Sports Center.

I hope you don't vote, or do vote with the Democrats on Wednesday.

Hannity is all over the place. He has a radio show, on Fox, and he's had a book on the best seller's list for awhile. I mean...if you take any interest whatsoever on being informed you know who all the player's are-whether they are on your side or against you.

I don't consider Fox news informative. I've never seen his book or heard his radio show. And I don't particularly care to, as i'm not going to learn anything.

You have no idea how informed of a person I am or not. To compare him to a senator or congressmen is ludicrous.

Out of the millions of people in this country, if he were to be in the 100 most influential, the majority of the country would at least have some idea of who he is. And I would bet you any amount of money that that could never be shown

Dude, I haven't watched MTV since they played videos and I don't even know what channel BET is.

If it makes you happy, I hope you don't vote, either.

...I'm sure I can make a pretty accurate guess.

I didn't say he should have been one of the 100 most influential, but questioned how you as a college student/grad. and supposed informed citizen have no idea who Hannity is.

I highly doubt you can make any guess. I'm going to refrain from personal attacks.

I have no idea who he is because I don't listen or watch right wing propaganda. Just like millions of other people in this country. That's fine that you do, but you have no basis to call those don't know who he is uninformed.

Since when is listening to whatever this guy has to say make someone an informed citizen or not?

And again, how does not knowing him compare to not knowing one's senator or congressman?

As soon as this thread dies I will just as soon forget his name.

It doesn't matter if you listen or watch or read what he has to say, the pure fact that you don't even know of the opposition says a lot. I don't like Moore, but I know who he is.

Because most people can't, and it's much more likely that if you don't know someone that is on tv, the radio, and widely read-you probably don't know senators or congressmen.

Moore was in a different media and did some different things. Plus he's a grotesque individual and fun for everyone to make fun of ;)

As for the second statement there, furnish some stats. He's widely-read by a particular audience. Not by the country in general. Do you know every single person on tv, radio, and that has written (or had someone write for them....) a book? I doubt that highly.

Hannity is a little larger than just anyone that has a radio or tv personality.

I don't know what stats you want. He is carried on 400 radio stations (broadcasted by ABC networks), has a show on FOX News that rivals Geraldo and Larry King, and has had best selling books.

If you do keep yourself informed, his name is well known-whether you read his stuff or hate it.

I want stats that show that someone who doesn't know who some conservative mouthpiece is is less likely to know who their senator or representative is.

If you're not informed, and don't want to be informed, please continue to vote with the Democrats on Wednesday.