The experts that write think-pieces, and are quoted in the media, and constitute the equivalent of public intellectuals in this mediated culture are almost unwatchable or unreadable. Unlike the scientists, priests, artists, revolutionaries, and politicians of the 19th c., every element of their public presence is calibrated to capture a place in the mediated narrative. To continue to be on television is the most important thing. And, reasoning from the stronger, every place in the cultural discorse is animated by the φρονεσισ of holding a place in the public discourse.
Perhaps it was ever thus, but I doubt it. The whole reason for priestly austerities in matters of ultimate truth is that the apodictic can be contaminated by place-holding. This is why those with the most credibility in the mediated narratives are those with authority outside the narratives: heroes from the untelevised past, authors who have written books no one has yet read, artists in the legitimate arts (as they're called by the industry magazines) outside the mediated matrix.
The apodictic requires that it be the same whether you are wealthy or poor, well-connected or a face in the crowd. This is the grounding that Beckett finds in his novels and in Godot.
Only those with nothing can speak of something.