It's not that rare, but the problem is that a lot of people who are outsiders, yet who truly understand science and then write about it, often end up becoming q

It's not that rare, but the problem is that a lot of people who are outsiders, yet who truly understand science and then write about it, often end up becoming quite sceptical of it. Just like how journalists who understand politics end up sceptical. The difference is, journalists holding politicians to account is well understood to be a critical part of democracy, but for science it's the opposite. If journalists start asking tough questions they're immediately evicted from the best known institutions because scientists (academics) have done a great job of convincing those in power that doubting scientists in any way is immoral and dangerous. So what you get is worthless fanboy journalism in which those who are smart enough to ask tough questions get removed, and those who are left just want to copy paste university press releases. In turn that beds general scepticism amongst the population because they can sense that nobody is challenging the "experts".