trying to be shocking for its own sake, to attract attention.

That's a good description of what I meant about Paglia.

My point is that this isn't just a problem in the comments section, it's a Salon problem.

Salon could publish Glenn Beck also, and the argument that "Hey, we like diversity" would still apply. The result would be that the place would fill up with readers, flame wars, and all the rest of it, but any sense of mission in the sense of presenting progressive views, or even just intelligent and interesting discourse, would be trashed.

Well, that's a good paraphrasing of what you and others have just said happens here.

You could also benefit I think from some sort of actual reputation control, DKos has the best one I've seen. There are all sorts of strange people there too, but anyone just flaming "Idiot!" "No, you're an idiot!" over and over would be removed by downrating soon enough.

Personally, I'd love to see you move elsewhere, because while I think Salon does some incredibly good work, I think the overriding mission here is to cause sensationalism, above and beyond all else, and that will never change. IMHO.

I've seen exactly that justification given by Joan Walsh, in various forms. I believe your estimation is more correct, which was pretty much my point. Rush Limbaugh has also long verbally linked to her, saying that "even a big liberal like Paglia agrees with me.." and so on.

So Salon's only options are

a) publish Paglia, or

b) cease to exist?

Please.

So here, in a post by Amity, we have the diversity argument:

http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/03/30/logic/permalink/4d9f4e1a6bf8a500f0fa1bea49827922.html

Just as a demonstration. To Amity I would just briefly say well, there are many who object to Paglia not on any of those grounds, but on the grounds that she writes sensationalist attention-seeking material, for that purpose alone. You clearly disagree with this assessment, which is fine.

Returning to addressing Glenn however, so if we each reject the "diversity" argument and agree about Paglia being published as sensationalist relatively substance-free fodder to get hits, then what's the point?

You argue constantly against the corrupting effect of the corporate-owned media being warped by the views of the corporations, or by the need to not ruffle the feathers of the advertisers who those corporations value for their income.

So if "new media" is going to feel the need to publish views for their sensationalist draw, then what's the real difference? The warping effect of the practice is the common point.

And if you think that publishing Paglia has no real effect other than drawing in extremists to the letters section, I strenuously disagree. The fact that Limbaugh and Drudge use her constantly as an example of a "liberal" who agrees that Rush Limbaugh's views are correct, isn't this causing harm itself? The Kabuki theater that Paglia is a liberal makes the whole thing more harmful than just another right winger ranting nonsense.

Yes, Salon publishes you and a number of other valuable progressive voices, and I would welcome a serious, and honest (in the sense of admitted) conservative voice. However that's no reason to publish sensationalist silliness in the interest of bankrolling the others. Dropping Paglia would mean less money, so maybe one of the gossip columns, or even several features like that, would have to go. So what?

Unless Paglia really is carrying the entire site, as you insist. Frankly, I find "All you can argue is that they should drop Paglia and perish, or not" to be disingenuous limiting of the argument. If I'm wrong and Salon really has no way to survive except by publishing Camille Paglia, then maybe it really should vanish.

You clearly fall into the camp of those who want Salon to embrace the advocacy model of journalism. I doubt you will ever be happy with the site no matter what, because I doubt it ever will.

Nope. Not even close. I wrote that I would welcome an honest conservative voice, but of course you either just ignored or didn't see that part. My objections have to do with honesty, or lack of, integrity, and most of all, quality.

You comment, again, is a perfect example, I'm sorry to say. The diversity argument regarding Paglia would actually fit directly into Glenn's list in this column, in my opinion. It seems to go like this:

If you dislike Camille Paglia writing for Salon, then this must be because you dislike any diversity of opinion and want the site to only reflect one viewpoint. This is the only possible reason for objections to her writing, so if you object, it must be your reason for doing so.

This ignores the fact that I, like many others who dislike Paglia's work, read all sorts of Web sites and sources of opinion, including conservative writers. I also disagree often with what progressive writers produce, and say so. Yet when it comes to Paglia's views, the only possible objection I could have is that she doesn't fit into my narrow political mindset.

It's as absurd as the rest of the items on Glenn's list.

It also ignores what I, and others, explicitly say about why we dislike Paglia, namely the insipid, shallow, and heavily disingenuous sensationalism that we see in her columns. I disagree that she's "articulate", or "interesting", I find her neither of those.

None of this is heard however, by you and some others, only that I must not be tolerant of "diversity".