The evolution of media as a platform for entertainment, and the development of the internet as a vehicle for retail commentary, has greatly expanded 'citizen journalism,' at the expense of reasoned discourse. In short, we now have much greater quantity and much less quality, an age-old criticism of democracy.

We're much more plebian now, in public letters, than we were only a generation ago. And yes, we've actually lost something in the quality of our discourse even as we've gained so much by greater citizen participation. Serious authors no longer sell ten million books, and the sheer level of hateful cacaphony in the modern media is nearly deafening.

For a few who miss the erudition of the public intellectuals on both the Left and Right of the recent century past, the television has been donated to charity, the newspaper subscription not renewed, cell phones are anathema, and magazines with front pages illuminating Paris Hilton's crotch or with Madonna and her tongue down Britney's throat go unbought and disappreciated.

Culture evolves every minute of every day, in a myriad of ways. Yet somehow, missing the public intellectuals known for their wit, intellect, and their courtliness is something anabolic, not simply the wistful wanderings of backward-looking pessimists. The public intellectual of today is a retailer, promoting mark-downs; those of yesterday were wholesalers who rarely, if ever, catered to the public. We've gained and we've lost by the culture's evolution; some of us sigh at what we've lost while others cheer at what we've gained.

Hopefully, everyone sighed at the loss of Mr. Buckley.

The evolution of media as a platform for entertainment, and the development of the internet as a vehicle for retail commentary, has greatly expanded 'citizen journalism,' at the expense of reasoned discourse. In short, we now have much greater quantity and much less quality, an age-old criticism of democracy.

We're much more plebian now, in public letters, than we were only a generation ago. And yes, we've actually lost something in the quality of our discourse even as we've gained so much by greater citizen participation. Serious authors no longer sell ten million books, and the sheer level of hateful cacaphony in the modern media is nearly deafening.

For a few who miss the erudition of the public intellectuals on both the Left and Right of the recent century past, the television has been donated to charity, the newspaper subscription not renewed, cell phones are anathema, and magazines with front pages illuminating Paris Hilton's crotch or with Madonna and her tongue down Britney's throat go unbought and disappreciated.

Culture evolves every minute of every day, in a myriad of ways. Yet somehow, missing the public intellectuals known for their wit, intellect, and their courtliness is something anabolic, not simply the wistful wanderings of backward-looking pessimists. The public intellectual of today is a retailer, promoting mark-downs; those of yesterday were wholesalers who rarely, if ever, catered to the public. We've gained and we've lost by the culture's evolution; some of us sigh at what we've lost while others cheer at what we've gained.

Hopefully, everyone sighed at the loss of Mr. Buckley.

While Galbraith may be a different league from Coulters/O'Reillyies I disagree with him being grouped with Milton Friedman or even Paul Krugman. While Galbraith was a respected "public intellectual", he definitely was not a respected economist. I would Group Galbraith with Robert Reich, not with Friedman

I think Ezra Klein may be confusing being a cultural figure with being a celebrity.

In the early years of the television age, a degree of celebrity was possible for a number of people for whom it is not today: novelists and historians interested in commenting on politics, classical musicians, athletes specializing in obscure Olympic sports. A medium still new needed something to fill air time, and found it in all sorts of places. It made people famous, and may have given some of them a larger audience for their more serious work. But to extent any of the people Klein mentions were genuine cultural figures it was through their more serious work rather than their temporary and largely accidental celebrity -- Mailer's novels, Friedman's economics, Schlesinger's histories.

Buckley was different. Intellectually he was something of a dilletante: considerably more talented than average, but a dilletante nonetheless. Politically, though, he had purpose that the other people Klein lists did not. In ways clearly visible to everyone, Buckley influenced the course of the modern Republican Party, the things it considered important, and even the language it used.

Buckley's influence shrank dramatically with Ronald Reagan's election in 1980. His purpose in politics fulfilled, there was little left in it that Buckley really needed to do, and with the Right he had championed for so long now dominant conservatives didn't need him in the way they had either. In his later years he was an icon of conservatism but not a force within it. He left a legacy of personal grace and the enjoyment of life, a legacy he continued to burnish long after the celebrity of his earlier career had faded.

Additions to the list: William Julius Wilson, Henry Louis Gates, Jr., Orlando Patterson, Glenn Loury

IMO, the inclusion of Krugman is unwarranted, a rewarding of credentials, not quality. Perhaps Krugman is civil in a more scholarly setting; in his public commentary through the pages of the Times, his bad faith toward opposing points of view is disqualifying.

99.9 percent of Americans have never heard of 99.9 percent of the people on Dan's list of current "public intellectuals." Far more people had heard of Galbraith, Buckley, Friedman, et al. Their presence extended far beyond the tiny, tiny group of people who know who, say, Tyler Cowen is. Or Anne-Marie Slaughter. If you go up to a moderately well-educated American in, like, Wisconsin and say, "John Kenneth Galbraith," that will probably ring a bell. If you say, "Larry Summers," it won't. People like those on Dan's list (some of them) are well known in their fields and among a tiny elite of people who follow what we follow. But they are not known by the general public, while someone like Buckley was. If anything, Dan's list proves Ezra Klein's point, more than it refutes it.