booboo bear April 10

“Journalists want nothing so much as to be part of the intellectual crowd. No doubt, this structural inferiority goes a long way to explain their tendency toward anti-intellectualism.” 330

Who is to say the journalists are not already part of the intellectual crowd? What defines someone as being a part of the intellectual crowd? If anything, I think we could say they are very much part of the intellectual crowd. They inform the public of information and events that they don’t already know about. To me, I consider them part of the intellectual crown because they know something that the average person does not know about. The fact that they know stories, events, and information the normal person doesn’t know about and they inform the public about them, that makes them the intellectual crowd. Some would say they are not intellectuals because they do not talk about intellectual topics. What is one man’s trash is another man’s treasure. Some people might not consider some topics intellectual but other might find it very interesting and thought provoking. If you read through a newspaper you might not find topics that interest you on the first page, especially if Brittney Spears just got a divorce, but if you look through the whole thing you will find a ton of information that is very “intellectual”. Just because something isn’t pertaining to politics or world peace or Hegemony doesn’t mean it is not intellectual. Most people would see an article on Tiger Woods and automatically assume its not intellectual. Well if someone is breaking down his scoring and results over the past 10 years and comparing and contrasting his scores and performances to Jack Nicklaus and then describing how his opponents are intimidated by his presence so much their scores go up just, why cant that be intellectual? What makes something intellectual? Why is it that just because someone doesn’t have 10 books written on their resume or they have a couple letters behind their name, they are not considered intellectual?