Most are aware that Time magazine has online their compilation of the one hundred most influential people of the century, a who’s who of artists, scientists, writers and politicians - as all who’s whos should be.

One wonders, though, of the criteria used in sifting through one hundred years of remarkable human beings in determining who should be included. No doubt another news organization with a different bias may have produced a different assemblage of noted personages.
Wikipedia describes the List’s evolution:

“The list was first published in 1999, when Time magazine named the 100 most influential people of the 20th century. Based on the popularity of the installment, in 2004 Time magazine decided to make it an annual feature in which the 100 people influencing the world most greatly were listed every year.”

Apparently, being listed is not honorary but just indicative of one’s power to influence events - for good or ill. Tony Blair was denied entry and Ann Coulter’s inclusion was scoffed at, while, strangely enough, Katie Couric’s inclusion was not.

As it stands, Time magazine is far from the final arbiter on such matters.