I've met far too many people who knew a lot about topic x but lacked basic critical thinking skills. Academia only compounds this because the entire system is built around getting tenure. How do you do that? By spending years (with no money doing grunt work) learning what the last wave of research taught and regurgitating it for the professors who already have tenure. The only way you get tenure is by pumping out peer reviewed research which is just as much about agreeing with existing preconceptions and personalities as it is about science. Even the professors who want to be effective teachers have to follow this treadmill. And follow this treadmill you will - if you want to succeed. It's very self-selecting. Who's the biggest masochist? Who is best at navigating the system?
If you actually look at paper after paper the core data is horrible or there are simple lapses in judgement about how their research is structured. You sit in graduate class criticizing and laughing at some of this but that's the research that makes the world go round. A lot of our core assumptions are less about data and more about intuitive arguments.
The whole system is lacking, so you'll forgive me if the idea of "new intellectuals" spawning a boon to public culture is a sham. The real issue is there is nobody but the intellectuals to criticize this bad research...the average journalist isn't trained in these methods and they seem to be less and less interested in truth as opposed to interesting headlines.