While some fields have higher-end media outlets like TED talks or infotainment-style demoware, or like Richard Thaler&#x27;s role in the recent movie <i>The Big Short</i>, other fields might have less sensationalist outlets like a Senate subcommittee hearing, a scientific press release, or inclusion in a documentary film or important literary outlet -- and any of these can lead to follow-on speaking engagements or invitations as an academic adviser or dignitary in various circumstances. And even in the case of Senate hearings, it&#x27;s often <i>not</i> about accuracy or objectivity, but instead about Supporting The Correct Team.<p>The point is not what is the maximum media exposure of a given field. The point is that in <i>any</i> field, there is a small elite class who mostly controls (as cultural gatekeepers) the ability for lower-status and aspiring researchers to advance, much like party politics. They form networks of editorial boards, committees for awarding tenure, and have nebulous connections through upper management of academia, corporate boards, endowments, politics, and celebrities. Yes it can vary by field, but you see the same pattern either at a big scale or a smaller scale.<p>I certainly believe many researchers enter the research profession with pure motives. But it is the ones who quickly learn to sublimate their desire for intellectually rigorous research and social betterment in favor of political skills who naturally rise to the gatekeeper positions.<p>Sadly, the pure and highly impressive research labor of a lot of these lower-status academics is just pure waste. I don&#x27;t mean to denigrate the academics for this -- their motives are pure; they are just operating in a rigged system where the only means to significant success is to &quot;wise up&quot; and realize that the best &quot;product&quot; you can provide is to sort of auction off the ability to affiliate with you by sublimating yourself to someone&#x27;s coalition in exchange for resources and notoriety provided by that coalition.