In some respects it might have been beneficial to have the 24×7 news cycle during the FDR era – if it had killed the New Deal, we may not have a lot of the mess we’re in now. We all know what they say about “ifs and buts” though.

What really steams me about all of the MSM coverage of the bonuses is that I think it is little more than a red herring to distract our attention from the real crime in all this – that the government is taking a more and more active (and activist) role in single companies (AIG is but one example, but is an important one). Not only do the funds come with strings attached, but the people supplying the funds (we, the taxpayers) have no say in who gets the funds or which strings get attached.

The other high profile case du jour is General Motors. It is, I believe, unprecedented for a company president to be fired by a U.S. president, but welcome to 21st century GM. Ditto the lines in the previous paragraph about funds/strings.

Thanks for a great, thought-provoking, and pulse-increasing post.

@Whitney: The idea of celebrity in general is an interesting one. Celebrity on the web is a completely different animal than say the celebrity of a movie star. When I meet someone I consider a web celebrity in person I’m still surprised (pleasantly so) at how open and friendly they act. The web still makes it possible to interact, regardless of the size of following, on a level that traditional celebrity doesn’t allow.
Like you, the individuals I define as “celebrities” are people who add a specific type of value to the work I do. The web supports niche celebrity in a way that would be unsupportable in other mediums.

@Robert: You raise a fair point that a lack of clarity can work against someone on the web. I believe the same applies to both men and women. You mention iJustine. Doesn’t the same argument apply to iJustin? Much of what makes the web so exciting is its very flexibility. I can’t speak personally to the value of @Pistachio. I suspect she would argue that her work can speak for itself, and if her clients are happy with the advice she provides and the results she helps produce, isn’t that a better measurement than credentials?

The beauty of this screwy industry is that we can control the flow of information. You have the luxury of turning off Calacanis, Scoble, and Brogan. I’m curious again at your mention of credentials, implying a validation or authority that someone without credentials doesn’t have. Isn’t part of the web’s success the ability to move beyond the idea that someone needs initials behind his name to be worth listening to? (note: I may be misunderstanding what you mean about credentials.)

I’m also in total agreement with the women you mentioned being worthy of recognition. I’d also add Charlene Li and Liz Strauss to your list.

@Ranter: Without planning to, I believe the feminist movement has made it difficult for women to have these conversations. If we admit that we don’t “want it all” or want a different life in general, we’re somehow betraying all the advances made. In the same way that we acknowledge our own personal strengths and weaknesses, I believe we’re doing a disservice to ourselves, both male and female, by not being honest about what we want. There’s stereotypes galore for both sexes, in some ways more now than ever due to political correctness.

If a woman talks about wanting to spend more time with her kids and work only part time, or not go back to work until the kids are in school full-time, there’s comments that she’s not serious about her career. However, if it’s the reverse, then there’s discussion about whether or not she’s a good parent, if she’s sacrificing her children’s happiness in the pursuit of advancement.

When we reach a point that we can acknowledge that what’s right for each of us—male or female—needn’t fit a movement we’ll be in a better position to honestly discuss the value of individual contributions without using numbers.

@Shannon: As long as lists continue to be used as measurements of value, people will continue to aspire to be on them.

After I read that article, I read about this amazing technology entrepreneur Tan Le who was featured in Inc. Magazine. So I know they are out there. But I when searching for this article (it was a bit hard to find), I found another article which was asking why aren’t more women founders of big companies… their answer is “choice”. Women choose not to take their companies big because of the lifestyle balance. They just don’t choose to sacrifice some basic fundamentals of living a balanced and fulfilling life.

Great article. I wish more women would dialogue about this. Or maybe they do and I’m just not finding the articles.

The whole industry is screwy.

Deb Schultz is someone that should have been on the list. Ditto with @conversationage and Ann Handley.