In the academy, there's a shared commitment to rules of discourse having to do with evidence, logic, having work subjected to scrutiny and critique by one's peers. In contrast, the media enables a kind of voyeuristic participation in such discussions, disconnected from any commitments. It is incapable of going into any depth or any sustained conversation. In the realm of humanities and especially in religion and theology, where ideas are connected to existential commitments, participating in talking-heads programs and publications is problematic because of the very nature of the medium. It is ephemeral by definition.
Nothing lasts more than a day.
It consists almost entirely of sound-bites. LJ First, by writing on subjects that have a genuine degree of importance and interest to an audience larger than one's own guild. Second, by writing plainly, using ordinary English. When academics tend to be understood only by a few other academics, this condemns even the best insights to a kind of hermetic existence. Third, by using venues that are genuinely public.