March 18, 2007: The New Yorker Gives Thumbs Up to Anna Nicole. World Loses Mind! Film at 11

This is terrifying. According to Liz Smith, serious publications proudly boast that they followed the endless Anna Nicole coverage:

'We admit it. We followed the coverage of Anna Nicole Smith's death. And we don't apologize," says the American Conservative magazine.

Is this, in fact, "fabulous" as Liz describes it, that at least three distinguished think tank-type publications explained (rationalized?) their interest in this tsunami of tabloid frenzy?

The New Yorker opined that death is so important that "we die forever," quoting Sophocles. And they harked back to Homer's "Odyssey" about bodies being buried as having an ancient historic imperative.

The New Republic said people with "good taste" were "lying hypocrites . . . Are we interested in a case involving a zaftig, dead fashion model, millions of dollars, child custody, etc.? Of course we are and why shouldn't we be?"

The American Conservative made fun of "serious commentators" like the Washington Post's Philip Kennicott, who wrote, "She had gotten under our skin, and taken on a role we didn't quite realize was so big in the history of marriage, money and sex." The magazine said instead that "Anna Nicole provided a diversion . . . We didn't watch because it meant something. Just the opposite. Entertainment offers a refuge because it is so very trivial."

After weeks of baby-daddy-and-who-gets-the-body tabloid coverage, don't you feel excused and maybe even a little highbrow now? I know I do.

Maybe the nation's leading economists will issue a report in support, Johns Hopkins will name a wing after her, or Mark Steines will win the Pulitzer for his Entertainment Tonight coverage.

It's the tabloid story that keeps giving. Next stop this week: baby custody hearings!