What seems to be the consensus is that academia has not brought in any revolutionary innovation for decades. Whenever practical innovation came, it came from characters as far from the 'standard intellectual stereotype' as could possibly be. As a result there is a haughty "keep debating while we get the job done" attitude, which may be mistaken for anti-intellectualism. In reality it is not that geeks dislike experts and intellectuals - it is that they've met too many would-be-experts who failed their most trivial relevancy tests, so the term 'expert' raises a BullshitIncomingException almost immediately in any geek's mind.
But lets be clear, this is the case everywhere. Geeks have the same clan politics. The difference is rarely the politics, but where you sit in the pecking order, that changes your perspective.
I actually think the problem with academia in CS today is it's too applied. They should NOT be focused on today's problems. The Cloud is not something one should do research on in academia. Industry will tackle the cloud from a million different angles. But what's after the cloud? What after touch and Kinect? Precise mind control and HUD in glasses/contacts really should be the mainstream in academic research today, but it's actually a fringe.
I think academia should be way out there more than it is. The geeks will protest that they do nothing of relevance, but that's how it should be. :-)
Generally folks who have seen far recognize the shoulders upon which they stand, but those who idolize them seem to see them floating in air.
What counts as "innovation" these days is what, LOLcats?
Very convenient. Also not far from the same-styled groups in the political spheres these days.
What most geeks are against in terms of 'anti-intellectualism' is the difference between X.400 and SMTP. You can build a somewhat functioning SMTP server/client in a day, try doing that with X.400.
Those spouting anti-intellectual dribble often forget the well worn, time tested shoulders they are standing on.
Regarding Tim Berners Lee, he is imho all but an 'average theoretical physicist' - which further proves my point.