P for Paglia

After reading the first paragraph of Neil Postman’s argument on television and the written language, it came off as clear and logical, whereas Camille Paglia’s came off as irrational and not thoroughly thought out. However, you cannot judge a book (or argument) by it’s cover. After fully reading these two arguments, I came to the conclusion that I agree with Paglia’s way of thinking more so than Postman’s.
As Postman argues that reading is a set process in which we learn from and television only confuses that process because of it’s “randomness and unconnected images,” Paglia concludes that people such as Postman dismiss television and never try to comprehend it. When I was able to distinguish these two arguments, it was clear to me that I have to agree with Paglia because I do learn from television. Although it is said that arguments such as Paglia’s come off as weak, it is true that television is our culture and even the most intelligent of scholars must acknowledge that.
An intelligent man such as Postman bases his argument on the writing of the bible, whereas Paglia talks about images of her past and how even though they may have been created by her religion of the Catholic Church, they remained images nontheless. Although Paglia’s argument does stray from strictly television to an argument for all speech versus writing, I have to agree more so with her thoughts because of my own personal way of learning and comprehending.