I think this is true to some extent. The fundamental problem is that the majority of journalists are generalists with training mostly in writing. This may have worked in the past, but the world has become very specialized. Generalized knowledge with a hermeneutical approach to discovery just doesn’t cut it. Media organizations seem to have realized this when it comes to law where many analysts are now lawyers, and in medicine to a certain extent as well. But not in the social or hard sciences.
The good news is that we're about to have AI that can make anybody a geat writer, including any researcher whose reporting the general public finds boring and incomprehensible.
Nah, we've got AI that avoids the need for a researcher because instead of taking time to read the material you can use it as inputs to a neural network and get a near-instant response in the form of paraphrases of the key points and other statements which aren't true but involve enough relevant terms in syntactically correct English to get past a subeditor...
