What is a ‘public intellectual’ anyways, and how can it relate to journalism?
On a recent conference our author went to, the following was offered to journalists:
No more quoting political scientists: It’s lazy and signals the reporter couldn’t find any other apparently neutral or objective source to talk. These people work in academics, not politics, so I’m not interested in their opinions on anything but their own research.’
This is often lazy journalism; an easy way for journalists to reinforce their beliefs and get a soundbite, while the quoted professor might receive a little flattery and perhaps star power if it happens often enough.
‘The important thing to understand about journalists is that they are the lowest ranking intellectuals. That is to say: they are members of the intellectual class, but in the status hierarchy of intellectuals, journalists are at the bottom. That is why they have traditionally adopted the status cues of the working class: the drinking and the swearing, the anti-establishment values and the commitment to the non-professionalization of journalism.’
and on professors:
The important thing to understand about academics is that they are the highest rank of intellectuals. That is why they have traditionally adopted the status symbols of the 19th-century British leisured class—the tweeds and the sherry and the learning of obscure languages—while shunning the sorts of things that are necessary for people for whom status is something to be fought for through interaction with the normal members of society (such as reasonably stylish clothing, minimal standards of hygiene, basic manners).
The ideas of original thinkers and those of thinkers in academia often trickle down into popular thought anyways, but the easy quote is often just a way to reinforce one’s own beliefs or ideology, or get a quick fix.
‘In a philosophical debate, what everyone involved is trying to get at is the truth. In contrast, what is at stake in the political realm is not truth but power, and power (unlike truth) is a “rival good”—one person or group can wield power only at the expense of another. This is why politics is inevitably adversarial. Political power is ultimately about deciding who shall govern, and part of governing is about choosing between competing interests’
Politics ain’t beanbag. The pursuit of truth and thinking new thoughts is difficult, tedious and often ill-explained and poorly understood by most of the public.
Related On This Site: From FuturePundit: ‘Low Empathy Response Makes Others Seem Less Human?’…From Edge: ‘Re: What Makes People Republican? By Jonathan Haidt’…Paul Krugman At The Guardian: ‘Asimov’s Foundation Novels Grounded My Economics’
So, economics is a science?: Update And Repost- From YouTube: Leo Strauss On The Meno-More On The Fact/Value Distinction?’…
Given my ideological leanings, I fear an academic-government-journalism triangle of entrenched interests guiding the ship of state. That said, nepotism, ideology, ignorance, power, doubt and truth shall carry on. Hate Is A Strong Word-Some Links On The BBC, The CBC, & NPR