Time magazine is no longer the gold standard for weekly news. Instead of staying committed to the important issues and stories of the day, Time might as well be in the same category as People and Us Weekly. It is a problem that may have begun long ago, but was first glaringly obvious with their pathetic excuse for a person of the year: You!

Now, the latest exhibit of Time's downward spiral is their list of the 100 most influential people in the world. Rather than a list of genuinely influential people — keep in mind that influence does not equate with morality or popularity — Time opted for a list that leaves me wondering what kind of influence the editors think matters.

The list of the Time 100 was, as usual, broken down into categories so as not to directly compare Speaker Nancy Pelosi to Rosie O'Donnell. Among the categories, Leaders and Revolutionaries undoubtedly had many people, as it includes politicians and leaders who are continually trying to change the world. The surprising part, however, is that the category of Artists and Entertainers actually had more people in it.

I am still confused as to how a category that is made up mostly of actors and singers could possibly have so many people on it. Consider too that Bono, perhaps the single most influential person in show business, isn't on it either. Even though his work with various international organizations on the AIDS pandemic in Africa is incredible, and earlier this year, he was awarded a knighthood by Queen Elizabeth. Even U.N. Goodwill Ambassador Angelina Jolie didn't make the list.

Most surprising, President Bush was not on the list, despite the fact that he is the president of the United States and his policies — no matter what you think of him — are affecting millions and millions of people every day. One must admit that Iraq — a situation that is almost entirely President Bush's doing — is influencing our foreign and domestic policies and even those of our allies.

Ask an Iraqi if the president's policies have had an influence on their lives. What do you think he'd say?

The real problem I have with the Time 100 list is that so many people are on the list simply for being famous. Does an actor or actress' ability to perform make him or her influential? Does Sacha Baron Cohen's ability to tell crude, yet hilarious, jokes make him something more than a good comedian and actor? There seems to be a desire to elevate people who entertain us to a sort of leadership position that doesn't seem to make sense.

There also is no rhyme or reason to who should or should not make the list. Shouldn't Bill or Melinda Gates have made the list given all their charitable work?

What about Ted Turner or Rupert Murdoch? Certainly both men have their weaknesses, but think about what they do: These two men influence a great deal of what the world sees and hears about news in the United States and around the world. Certainly that should merit a nod.

Ultimately, what this comes down to is taking the easy way out. To be sure, many of the people on the list are truly influential. Speaker Pelosi must be on the list, as should Hillary Clinton — but where is Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid? Doesn't he have any influence? Not one of the Republicans running for president made the list, yet both Clinton and Barack Obama did — even non-declared candidate Al Gore made it.

Time has fallen into the same trap that CNN, Fox News and most other media outlets have: the glorification of celebrity and style over substance. I don't deny that Hollywood influences our lives, but is it really more important than our elected officials or international leaders? Of course not. Actors give us an escape from the world around us, but making a point in film is not the same as making policy that affects hundreds of millions of people every day — here at home and around the world.

Mike Hahn ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in history and political science.