Emily, I keep forgetting to point out to you that you're assigning emotions and thoughts to me that aren't accurate, or even relevant. You're also far too literal-minded in your response.

My main objection isn't that CP doesn't talk about what I want her to talk about. My objection is that she, and so many like her, take up so much of the national media space. They don't add any really valuable insight (anyone who did wouldn't be talking about hair in Edward's hair, or effeminacy in Gore & Kerry's case, and other worthless, pointless observations, or worse than worthless actually, since they make it difficult or impossible to talk about what a candidate is actually ADVOCATING, when much of the media spends so much time on this type of garbage).

The MEDIA'S (and I mean news media) job is to take the time, thought and energy to investigate what's important, determine if a candidate's positions make sense, do research, and more. Talking about hair (as an example) doesn't accomplish that. That is what they're being paid to do. The public is NOT being paid to do that, though it is in their own interest to pay serious attention, far too many don't have the time or ability to do so with such heavy burdens just to make ends meet. So while I'm not giving the public a free pass, I don't think they have the greatest culpability. The media could do much to improve the state of our country, and even the world, yet they've chosen not to do so, I (and many others) have chosen to say how wrong that is.

Here you say: <<Would you have Paglia tailor her expression in such a way that would be impossible to reduce to an inflammatory sound-bite?>>

I would have Paglia be more substantive. You've yet to prove she has any substance at all, and it gets tiresome to keep pointing that out to you. You say she's provocative, that does not equal substance. In fact, it's a cheap way of making a point.

You say <<Because when you actually bother to digest Paglia's work in its entirety, you HAVE to think. It's surely provocative, but among the things it consistently provokes are thought and debate. I mean, look at US.>>

The thought and debate are not over the substance of what she says, but the lack of same. The debate and complaints here about WHY IS SHE (AND OTHERS LIKE HER) GETTING SO MUCH AIRTIME WHEN THEY HAVE SO LITTLE SUBSTANCE? Paglia's just another example of what's wrong with the media. She utters words for their shock value, and that's all. Like provocativeness, shock value does not equal substance.

Then you say <<In you, Paglia provokes anger, because you seem to feel that it is the intellectual's job to pander to a childish public and screen her words accordingly.

I find that condescending.>>

I find that stupid, Emily, and you should try to understand what you're being told. The intellectual's job is the opposite of pandering to a childish public, it is to provide something of real SUBSTANCE. CP does NOT do that. I'd also point out that CP does IS to pander to a childish public because she says what she does ONLY to shock and tittilate. That will not lead to a less childish public, but play to the worst aspects of them.

Now you condescendingly write <<I'm sorry that your frustration with the "mainstream media's" refusal to address "important issues" makes you feel personally marginalized.>>

I have never said that I was personally marginalized by anything about her. That's been your characterization more than once. It is a case of your projecting on to me something I do not feel. What I DO SAY is marginalized is substance when trivial people like CP get so much airtime. THAT is what I'm complaining about. THAT is what I'm tired of seeing.

Later, you say <<But the actual mainstream votes daily with mouse, remote, and wallet...so if you're angry at Paglia because she's charismatic, galvanizing, and using vibrant language to say occasionally goofy things, then why aren't you mad at the "good" intellectuals for not being more charismatic, vibrant & galvanizing in their efforts to make points you DO approve of?>>

I don't actually give a damn how charismatic, vibrant and galvanizing anyone is that's making a substantive point. It's the POINT that should be vibrant, it's not necessary for the person uttering it to be.

I must say that you seem awfully shallow in your responses. Why do you defend so much airtime given to airheads? I think in dangerous times (and surely you agree that these are dangerous times), it is even more dangerous to make trivia and trivializing via sensationalism such a huge national focus. It makes for dangerous complacency, and complacency has played a large role in how we've gotten where we are today.

Finally, in another letter you say <<Are you guys really claiming to be worried about the "trivialization of important issues"?

Because if so, I call bullshit.>>

Are you REALLY suggesting that we who complain about the exaltation of trivia have made the trivial stories you list the most important or most viewed? Based upon what evidence? Is that another case of projection on your part? Please refrain from projections if you wish to be taken seriously.

--Ron Robertson