These characteristics are numerous and can include or exclude elements such as education, sophistication of the works written, what audience the intellectual is targeting, experience in a field such as journalism, to what level their works have distribution and the list can go on. The fact that these various elements can be included or excluded show how the term definition is not an exact science.
Traditionally, the definition has been more exclusive. Public intellectuals were expected to have a certain level of education and were more respected if they came from an Ivy League institution. But in recent times the manner by which one arrives at this title or position in society has changed. Thomas L. Friedman is such a case.
Thomas L. Friedman is a clear example how experience in a field can eventually earn you the title of "public intellectual." Freidman, educated at Brandeis University, began writing for the New York Times in 1981 as a financial reporter. While reporting, Freidman has not only covered subjects on economics but has written on subjects such as the White House international relations, the Cold War and recently on terrorist threats. The New York Times has only made up a portion of his work. Friedman has also been highly successful as an independent author. His books have not only won multiple Pulitzer awards but they have served as influential pieces in their corresponding fields.
Whether writing about the shifting dynamics of globalization in our current world in the World is Flat or the need of our presidential candidates to propose real change, Friedman shows a depth of knowledge but also an accessibility to most readers. The combination is what makes him a successful writer and public intellectual. His work has great depth but the manner in which he writes and the vocabulary he uses still allows for the layman to easily understand. This effectiveness in clear communication allows his work to truly be understood by the general public and in turn be influential.
His influence is apparent in modern politics as he if often a guest on respected political talk shows like Meet The Press. But what is most important about this influence is that not only are people listening to what he says but the content which he puts forward is always relevant to the times and to issues facing our political and economic systems. As Stephen Mack in his blog "The New Democratic Review" notes, "if public intellectuals have any role to play in a democracy--and they do--it's simply to keep the pot boiling. The measure of public intellectual work s not whether the people are listening, but whether they're hearing things worth talking about." By keeping the "pot boiling" Mack states what he believes the public intellectuals role in society should be and it is one who criticizes but also puts forward ideas for change. As I previously said Friedman has been on respected forums like "Meet The Press" and as seen below his criticism is always current and quite relevant.
