> What kind of things does journalism consistently get right, then? Generally speaking, journalists quote their sources accurately, even when the identity of t

> What kind of things does journalism consistently get right, then? Generally speaking, journalists quote their sources accurately, even when the identity of the source is concealed (eg. "A senior administration official", "sources familiar with the matter", etc.). That doesn't save the reader from the sources being wrong, having an axe to grind, or straight up lying, but journalists try to mitigate those issues with multiple sources and a healthy amount of skepticism. Keep in mind that the criticism here mostly applies to general-purpose journalists, rather than ones with a specific "beat" they have experience (and even expertise) with. "Science and technology" and "health & medicine" reporters aren't really on a beat, the categories are far too broad, but general interest publications simply can't employ all the people they would need to specialize in every fractal branch on the tree of human knowledge. So reporters maybe specialize a little, and rely on a roster of experts they can call up for a quote or maybe some background explanation. Except they are always on a deadline, and if an expert doesn't get back to them in fast enough, they just do the best they can, file the story and move on to the next one. The flip side of this is that "experts" who are super reliable in terms of getting back to reporters with a hot take get quoted a lot even when they don't know what they are talking about. Reporters know this, but they have to quote somebody before their deadline.