Find a Dedicated Store to Purchase Oprah's Favorite Things on Amazon.com/oprah 
 
 NEW YORK, NY--(Marketwired - November 03, 2016) - O, The Oprah Magazine today revealed its annual Oprah's Favorite Things holiday gifts list, and with more than 100 products, this year's list is the biggest ever. For the second year in a row, curated items will be available for purchase in the Oprah's Favorite Things store, a one-stop shop on Amazon.com (www.amazon.com/oprah). 
 
 Oprah's Favorite Things list is a must-have holiday shopping guide that features the most decadent desserts, ingenious gadgets, and finest finds in home, fashion, and beauty. Highlights from the list include Oprah's favorite reading glasses; American cabernet wine in customizable bottles; Oprah's new cook book Food Health and Happiness; candy cane-striped onesies for the whole family; OWN Digital's new word puzzle game with inspirational quotes; slenderizing puffy outerwear vests; luggage with a built-in charging station, tracking capability and weight sensor; English muffins, biscuits and so much more. 
 
 "Sometimes it's the little things that make for the most thoughtful gifts," said Oprah Winfrey. "There are lots to choose from on this list." 
 
 Twelve lucky readers will also have the chance to win every item on Oprah's Favorite Things List in the 12-Day Give-O-Way Sweepstakes (www.Oprah.com/12days), which runs from November 28 through December 9. One additional winner will have the chance to win it all with the Instant Win Code (www.oprah.com/instantwin16) kicking-off on November 8 in tandem with the issue's newsstand date. 
 
 "The annual reveal of Oprah's Favorite Things has become a really fun holiday tradition," said Doug Herrington, senior vice president of North American retail at Amazon. "And, for the second year in a row, Amazon makes it super easy to discover and shop these amazing finds and get them in time for the holidays." 
 
 To see the full list of items please visit www.Oprah.com/favoritethings. 
 
 The December Favorite Things issue is the largest of the year, with a nearly 20 percent increase in advertising versus 2015. It hits newsstands nationwide on November 8. 
 
 About O, The Oprah Magazine 
 
 O, The Oprah Magazine (oprah.com/omagazine) encourages confident, intelligent women to reach for their dreams, express their individual style and make wise choices, guided by the values of one of the most charismatic women in the world, O Editorial Director Oprah Winfrey. With an emphasis on personal growth, the magazine inspires, addressing every aspect of a woman's life -- the material, the intellectual and the emotional -- and deeply connects with more than 15 million readers every month (MRI, 2011 Doublebase). From the moment it launched, O, The Oprah Magazine carved out a unique position in the marketplace and created an entirely new category in women's magazines, delivering the Live Your Best Life message through thoughtful, ever-evolving content and the trusted advice provided by well-known experts. Throughout the years, O, The Oprah Magazine has been recognized with the publishing industry's highest honor, winning multiple American Society of Magazine Editors (ASME) awards. Follow O, The Oprah Magazine on Twitter @O_Magazine and Instagram at @OprahMagazine. 
 
 O, The Oprah Magazine is a co-venture between Harpo Print, LLC and Hearst Magazines, a unit of Hearst, one of the nation's largest diversified media, information and services companies. With 21 titles in the U.S., Hearst is the leading publisher of monthly magazines in terms of total paid circulation, reaching 79.5 million readers and 79 million site visitors (comScore), with a social media following of more than 115 million. 
 
 About Amazon: 
 
 Amazon is guided by four principles: customer obsession rather than competitor focus, passion for invention, commitment to operational excellence, and long-term thinking. Customer reviews, 1-Click shopping, personalized recommendations, Prime, Fulfillment by Amazon, AWS, Kindle Direct Publishing, Kindle, Fire tablets, Fire TV, Amazon Echo, and Alexa are some of the products and services pioneered by Amazon. For more information, visit www.amazon.com/about. ||||| It has finally happened: After being included in every single Time 100 list since its inception in 1999, Oprah Winfrey has failed to make a showing in the magazine’s inventory of the world’s most powerful figures. From 2004, when Time decided to annually update its Most Influential People roll call, to 2011, Winfrey was the only person to maintain her standing each year—unlike comparative underachievers Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton, who made the cut a mere six times, and Steve Jobs, who was included only five. 
 
 
 
 Last year, Winfrey—whom some have credited with being the influencer behind more than more than a million votes for Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential election—left network television to start up her own cable channel, the Oprah Winfrey Network. In May 2011, after 25 seasons, Winfrey aired the final episode of her namesake talk show and televised platform to the public. This year, Time fills the Oprah void with new list members Kate and Pippa Middleton, Tim Tebow, Kristen Wiig, Rihanna, and Mitt Romney. ||||| Whose job is it to change the world? 
 
 Okay, that’s a big question, so let’s start off with a (somewhat) simpler one: Is admitting that you have a problem, truly the first step to recovery? There’s a new trend in conversations about race, diversity and privilege in America. More and more, you’ll see and hear people “checking” their privilege at the start of such conversations. Now that everyone is talking about the fact that Hollywood has a diversity problem, and America has a race problem (problems that intersect with gender and class, among other factors), there seems to now be a general rule in place that you have to acknowledge these problems and your own privilege in the face of them. 
 
 The good news is that you don’t have to do much else beyond that. 
 
 In other words, merely acknowledging the issue of diversity as a real thing that exists—and then doing little else beyond that—has somehow become enough. I was reminded of this new trend when I read the introduction to The Hollywood Reporter’s annual Top 100 list, written by Janice Min. 
 
 And lastly, yes, we know that a lot of this list is white guys. We won’t need social media, thanks anyway, to drop an anvil on our heads to realize this. Out of the 124 names on the list (due to some shared groupings), there are only 19 women and 10 people of color (six African-Americans, two Asians, two Latinos). I’d like to think we cover the issues of gender and diversity that plague Hollywood with a critical eye and will continue to. And I hope and expect that one day in the near future this list has a wholly improved and reflective composition. 
 
 This attempt to get in front of social media seems incredibly odd. Firstly, it seeks to name “social media” (which, in this case, is basically synonymous with Black Twitter) as the problem in this scenario. Don’t you dare rise up and point out the fact that there are only 19 women and 10 people of color on this list, Black Twitter—in fact I’ll do it right here and beat you to the punch so you can’t blame me for anything! How odd, to villianize the same people who have forced you to, at the very least, be aware of how many people of color are consistently left off of lists like this. How odd to think that such a flippantly delivered warning will keep us from asking questions about yet another list celebrating the accomplishments of—as you yourself admit—”a lot” of white guys. 
 
 It’s also interesting (read: infuriating) to note a certain attempt at undercutting the accomplishments of those few women on the list. Take for example, the language used in Channing Dungey’s ranking: 
 
 Since becoming the first African-American woman ever tapped to lead a Big Four broadcast network in February, Dungey, 47, has exercised her power by slashing seven series, including surprises Nashville and Castle, and adding new ones centered on overweight housewives and talking dogs. 
 
 BIG WIN: Her new gig, especially given her lack of noncreative experience. 
 
 Sure, Dungey made the Top 100 list (one of only three black women to do so—she’s joined by Shonda Rhimes and Oprah Winfrey), but it doesn’t sound like THR’s especially excited about that. From what I’m reading here, it sounds like she’s spent the last few months ruining all of TV. 
 
 But let’s say we can put such tone, and Min’s sly remark about social media anvils to the side. Min is saying we must look at the whole of what The Hollywood Reporter covers to understand how they work against the active and ongoing discrimination against women and blacks, and other people of color in the industry. In other coverage, just not here, she seems to say, we are trying to do our part. 
 
 The thing is, this isn’t the first time THR has made such a claim, and participated in this trendy movement of checking oneself, while taking little-to-no responsibility for that which required checking. Last year Stephen Galloway made a similar attempt to get in front of social media and any other critics, by penning an article titled Why Every Actress on The Hollywood Reporter Roundtable Cover Is White. Galloway, like Min, hoped to beat all those other writers to the punch, and gain some credit for merely acknowledging the problem. 
 
 However, neither Galloway nor Min seems willing to take any of the responsibility here. They gladly admit that Hollywood has a problem, but they defend their publication as a mere reflection of Hollywood—not to be blamed for the discriminatory and racist practices of the executives and casting directors, and those others in positions of power. It’s not their job to resolve these issues—in fact, they can’t! They, mere Hollywoodreporters are powerless against the real villain: HOLLYWOOD. Galloway explained this very clearly: 
 
 So who’s responsible? The Academy drew flak for failing to nominate Selma in many categories, but the Academy doesn’t make films, any more than The Hollywood Reporter does: It recognizes work that the industry creates. 
 
 He also explained how badly he felt about his all-white cover, and it wasn’t until the very end of the piece that he admitted to a mistake, or a regret at least: 
 
 On our most recent Director Roundtable, forced to choose among three superb filmmakers for one slot, I opted for Ridley Scott rather than Straight Outta Compton director F. Gary Gray, an African-American. The Martian had opened to exceptional acclaim and box office, and Scott looked like the front-runner for the Oscar. Still, I now wish I had added Gray to the mix, and regret that I ignored both his lawyer’s and his agents’ pleas to do so. At least I can take comfort in having three men of color on our upcoming Actor Roundtable. 
 
 Well, which is it Hollywood Reporter? Are you powerless in this fight? Or, actually quite powerful, but busy making yourself feel better when you fail to fight for diversity in one issue, but “make up for it” in another issue? After all, you can’t be expected to consistently fight for diversity (also known as normalcy) all of the time. 
 
 Asking who’s responsible for the diversity problem is like playing chicken vs. egg. For example, if more black actresses covered magazines, would they get more work (short answer: yes)? But should more black actresses cover magazines when they’re not getting enough work? Long answer: Yes, because that is one way to combat the problem of their lack of work. But to do such a thing, you’d have to assume that it’s your responsibility to change Hollywood, and to change the world. You’d have to believe that you don’t have to be a studio executive to exact change. 
 
 I liked that Min’s opening explained the process of choosing the Top 100. I don’t have her job, and she succeeding in convincing me that defining “power” for an entire industry is quite a feat. She put it beautifully—they are “trying to measure something intangible: clout.” But she didn’t succeed in convincing me that her publication is aware that they are complicit in the problem. (In fact, when I read her explanation, the words of one iconic black artist immediately came to mind: “We don’t believe you, you need more people.”) The world is filled with people everywhere, insisting that it’s not their job to address certain cultural and social issues. Diversity in Hollywood isn’t their problem or fault, racism isn’t their problem or fault, Donald Trump isn’t their doing, etc. They are/we are all innocent, because they/we don’t make the rules. It’s the Pontius Pilot syndrome, and without exaggeration I can say that it does real violence to the culture, and to the people. 
 
 Acknowledging that your publication has a problem (or pretending to acknowledge the problem, but then pivoting to Hollywood and social media as the real villains), is not enough. If THR wants to convince us that it’s a publication concerned with racist Hollywood practices, it’s going to need to do better than the occasional Chris Rock op ed. Its biggest issues—these power rankings and roundtables—need to stop functioning as mere “reflections” of a troubling place and time; they need to be that change they keep insisting must come first. 
 
 It’s not activism, it’s innovation. And that should be a concept that we can all get behind. 
 
 
 
 Shannon M. Houston is a Staff Writer and the TV Editor for Paste. This New York-based writer probably has more babies than you, but that’s okay; you can still be friends. She welcomes almost all follows on Twitter.
– The Time 100—Time magazine's annual list of the 100 most influential people in the world—has just hit the interwebs, and as usual, the names range from obvious to head scratching. The names you expect are there—Barack Obama, Oprah, Steve Jobs—as are some you might not, or that seem to be in an odd category. Glenn Beck, for example, makes the list as a “Leader.” The “Heroes” category, meanwhile, contains a bunch of sports stars and entertainers—Phil Mickelson, Ben Stiller, and Serena Williams—alongside the likes of Bill Clinton or Mir Hossein Mousavi, the winner of Time's reader poll. Ashton Kutcher makes the “Artists” list, presumably because he has a Twitter account, as does Conan O'Brien, presumably for being fired. You can see the whole list here, or, for extra fun, check out Joel Stein's Least Influential list.