I want to amend my diatribe on this. As I think of the profs in my own, former department I have to admit that most of them have a positive aversion to involvement in any public debate or controversy. The good implication of this is that they have a greater capacity to uphold standards. The bad is that they are more insular in terms of politics and methodology, which we've talked about.
Maybe it's only or mainly the characters from the elite departments who enter the political/media arena who run the risk of exploiting their credentials in order to speak rubbish for the sake of political concerns. This seems to be tolerated by their cloistered peers, but toleration is not quite the same thing as commission.
Broad-mindedly,
MBS