SCREEN-L Archives

February 1995, Week 1


Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Allan Siegel <[log in to unmask]>
Mon, 6 Feb 1995 15:15:11 CST
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
text/plain (43 lines)
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
In responding to Marilyn Robinson's posting of 2/3/95, Larry Jarvik states:
>I don't understand what any of this organizational stuff has to do with PBS,
>nor Ms. Robinson's interest in same.
Either Mr. Jarvik is being purposely naive or he has little understanding
of the political objectives of institutions such as The Center for the
Study of Popular Culture (CSPC). Somehow I doubt this to be the case.
Neither he nor Mr. Horowitz are exactly benign critics of public television
nor do their desires for a 'good housekeeping award' for governmental
thriftiness ring particularly true.
The CSPC sees public discourse being conducted in a certain fashion and
within the parameters of certain ideological groundrules. It is part of
their image of how a democracy functions. It's no big deal, everybody has a
shtick to grind. But, the fact is people learn their tools-of-the-trade
while employed or enrolled at  various institutions (this can't be a
surprise to you). I am sure the Heritage Foundation recognized that when
they made you one of their resident scholars. The point, finally, is that
'organizational stuff' effects this debate. Sen. Pressler seems to know
that and I am sure you do also.
Mr. Jarvik also states that:
>I don't like the implied smear that I'm misrepresenting myself and would like
>an apology for the insult....
> The ugly undertone of legalistic intimidation is perhaps the most easily
>marker of today's academic bullies.
WOW. I thought thick-skin was one of the characteristics of Beltway
ideologues; c'mon, this hyper-sensitivity thing is really thin.
Do 'academic bullies' have any noteworthy physical characteristics or do
you have to be really good at reading subtext inorder to smoke them out?
Need I remind you that for someone who so strenuously objected to this
debate appearing here in the first place, you obviously enjoy the repartee
(as your numerous posts attest). But, give me a break, you're more than
simply a disgruntled heckler; it's time to give us the full benefits of
your wisdom.
Allan Siegel
[log in to unmask]