I can assure you that many others are toiling away in areas that could not plausibly lead to a TED talk. It's not all show-and-tell prestidigitation, but some areas are heavier in that regard than others -- like machine learning, for instance.
Your response is rational, however, in its critique of many fields and forums. I'd like you not, however, to denigrate the incredible sacrifices being made by researchers in all fields of study. Of course, the snake-oil rules the day at the moment, but those are just the most vocal and observable of workers, and they cast the rest in an unfortunate and undeserved light. The startup world, in many ways, shares a large responsibility for this perniciousness, as institutions all vie with press releases for investment and donation money more now than ever before with the goal of reaping short-term profits in the marketplace.
While some fields have higher-end media outlets like TED talks or infotainment-style demoware, or like Richard Thaler's role in the recent movie The Big Short, 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's often not about accuracy or objectivity, but instead about Supporting The Correct Team.
The point is not what is the maximum media exposure of a given field. The point is that in any 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.
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.
Sadly, the pure and highly impressive research labor of a lot of these lower-status academics is just pure waste. I don'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 "wise up" and realize that the best "product" you can provide is to sort of auction off the ability to affiliate with you by sublimating yourself to someone's coalition in exchange for resources and notoriety provided by that coalition.
> 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.
Nevermind just academia. Sadly, what you've just described neatly sums up modern work life in most organizations (companies, non-profits, open source, etc.) that I've been a part of.
Startups may sometimes be an exception to this rule, but they often come with their own set of problems (frat house atmosphere, ageism, zero diversity, expectations of 80+ hour weeks, etc.).
Your response is rational, however, in its critique of many fields and forums. I'd like you not, however, to denigrate the incredible sacrifices being made by researchers in all fields of study. Of course, the snake-oil rules the day at the moment, but those are just the most vocal and observable of workers, and they cast the rest in an unfortunate and undeserved light. The startup world, in many ways, shares a large responsibility for this perniciousness, as institutions all vie with press releases for investment and donation money more now than ever before with the goal of reaping short-term profits in the marketplace.