Here is an example – A senior medical and health reporter for Bloomberg.

BA politics and government. MA in international trade and commerce, and a 4 week “boot camp” in medical evidence. On her career trajectory, she eventually began reporting on health topics.

I do not mean to pick on her – this is just a convenient example. This is true for most reporters you look up on LinkedIn. They have no or little formal training in the subjects that they report on.

In most journalism (outside of business/finance and meteorology) the reporters have degrees in subjects like political science, government or journalism, and sometimes English literature or creative writing. Seriously. But report on topics that generally require specialized knowledge.

If you or I write about topics outside our field, we are accused of being “outside your lane” (this has happened to me). Yet most reporters are well outside their lane – yet somehow become viewed as experts by having interviewed many “experts”.

Do they have the fundamental knowledge to skeptically question? Or do they, as some do, nearly worship the “experts”, fearful to critically question their claims?

How does this make sense?

Do note that many reporters in business/finance/economics have degrees in those or related subjects. And most TV weather reporters have a degree or certificate in broadcast meteorology. They also – typically – become the “science” reporter at the local TV station.

I have a BS in computer science, an MS in software engineering, and an MBA in general management. I have also taken significant additional graduate courses in medical informatics taught at a medical school, and in computer security. If I write about something in medicine or health, I’m outside my lane. The rules don’t apply equally – journalists seem to get a free pass to say anything without being questioned.

Again, how does this make sense?