Who Gets to Be Influential? Because TIME Magazine’s List Isn’t It

Photo Credit: TIME Magazine via TIME Magazine’s 2025 TIME100 profile of Blake Lively. Used for commentary and editorial purposes only.

BREWTIFUL LIVING | OPINION
Tuesday, April 22, 2025

By Sara, Editor-in-Chief

Let’s talk about TIME Magazine—the self-proclaimed gatekeeper of influence. Every year, they drop their TIME 100 list like it’s gospel. And every year, we collectively raise our eyebrows because the list reads less like a reflection of cultural significance and more like a glorified PR stunt for the already powerful.

This year’s most glaring example? Blake Lively. The same Blake Lively who’s currently embroiled in a public legal mess involving It Ends With Us director Justin Baldoni. The lawsuits—plural—detail a pretty grim work environment and creative fallout. So, while she’s being sued and possibly ghost-directing a disaster in real-time, TIME decides now’s the moment to celebrate her as a titan of influence. Right.

According to Daily Mail’s report, people aren’t buying it—and honestly, they shouldn’t. Because this is the latest in a long tradition of TIME treating influence like a popularity contest for people already drowning in privilege and good press.

And while the magazine insists this list isn’t about approval but impact, let’s be real: when you place someone under investigation next to changemakers actually risking something to shift culture? That’s not impact. That’s misdirection.

The Fine Print: What TIME Really Means by “Influence”

Every time the list drops, TIME makes a point to clarify that this isn’t an endorsement—it’s about who shaped the year, for better or worse. But the “for worse” rarely makes it onto the cover unless it conveniently fits a headline.

Take a look at history. In 1938, TIME named Adolf Hitler as Person of the Year, followed by Joseph Stalin in both 1939 and 1942. Technically, sure—they were powerful figures who altered the global order. But what TIME fails to reckon with, even today, is the long-term impact of platforming destructive power under the guise of neutrality.

According to Business Insider, this tradition has always walked a tightrope between documentation and glorification. Which makes the current list even more confusing. Because it’s not like Blake Lively is being recognized for disrupting systems or reshaping politics—she’s being praised in the middle of reputational collapse.

So, what’s the actual criteria? And more importantly—who gets a pass?

Celebrity Worship Is Not Influence—It’s Just PR

We need to stop confusing visibility with value. Because if we’re measuring “influence” by who dominates the algorithm or ends up on tabloids, then we’re not curating a list of cultural leaders. We’re collecting clickbait.

According to Glamour, the magazine has a pattern of stacking opposites to look balanced—Christine Blasey Ford and Brett Kavanaugh were on the same list in 2019. The irony? It neutralized the weight of Ford’s testimony by pairing it with the man it was against.

This year, Lively’s inclusion does the same thing: it neutralizes the discomfort of ongoing lawsuits by giving her a glossy write-up and an award-season halo. The narrative becomes: she’s being criticized, but look, she made TIME!

No accountability. No transparency. Just strategic celebration.

TIME Has Always Been... Sus

Let’s not pretend this is new. TIME has long been criticized for playing both sides, hedging bets, and rewarding proximity to power over actual grassroots impact.

In the early 2000s, they praised George W. Bush during the height of the Iraq War. In 2007, they named Vladimir Putin Person of the Year—a full decade before his interference in U.S. elections became a known fact. And Donald Trump? Featured several times even during some of the darkest days of his administration. Why? Because chaos sells.

According to Wikipedia’s breakdown, TIME’s editors have historically chosen people who “for better or for worse… influenced the events of the year.” But the editorial framing always leans flattering. Lavish profiles. Studio-lit photos. Quotes from celebrity friends. It’s less an analysis of impact and more of a brand partnership.

The Real Cost of These Lists

There’s a deeper issue here—and it’s not just about one celebrity. It’s about what happens when we keep handing cultural legitimacy to people who are already in PR clean-up mode.

Lively isn’t the only example. TIME routinely elevates figures mid-scandal, often without any acknowledgement of the ongoing controversy. This isn’t about critique. It’s about optics.

The list isn’t neutral. It’s a reinforcement of power. And it distracts from the people who actually deserve recognition—the activists organizing under threat, the whistleblowers with no legal protection, the artists speaking truth to power without a stylist or a publicist on standby.

When those people get passed over for someone with an excellent Instagram aesthetic, we learn what TIME really values. And it’s not bravery.

Final Word: Influence, Deconstructed

If TIME is going to continue being the measuring stick for cultural influence, it needs to clarify what it’s actually measuring. Because right now? It feels less like a curated celebration of change and more like a desperate attempt to stay relevant in a media landscape where influence is rapidly decentralizing.

We don’t need another list of polished elites being celebrated in the middle of chaos. We need better definitions. We need integrity.

And if TIME can’t give us that?

We stop giving them ours.

Credit: This article was inspired by original reporting from the Daily Mail.