> ...but for some reason journalists don't do this.
I imagine most journalists would love to have technical reviewers on their work, but there's no funding for it and there's pressure to churn content as quickly as possible. The specialized editors and fact checkers have been stripped away in the last few decades to create lean content mills.
>I imagine most journalists would love to have technical reviewers on their work, but there's no funding for it and there's pressure to churn content as quickly as possible.
well, so, we call these people what they are : tabloid writers.
journalists are the ones that take the time, effort, and cost to verify claims and rebroadcast perceived truths.
This is a bit of a "no true Scotsman" issue. Almost no one working as a journalist is given the resources to do that. Even if they have access to those resources, they don't necessarily have access to them for every story. And how are you supposed to become a senior journalist who has developed sources and gained enough trust/reputation to have resources invested in them - without being a junior journalist who is only given the leftover scraps?
A journalist deprived of resources might regress to what you call a tabloid writer, sure. But my issue is with framing it as a moral failing on their part, that they're too lazy or stupid or arrogant to get the facts right. Surely there are people like that, but it isn't most of them. This is a systemic issue. As a society we have failed to fund these activities.
I imagine most journalists would love to have technical reviewers on their work, but there's no funding for it and there's pressure to churn content as quickly as possible. The specialized editors and fact checkers have been stripped away in the last few decades to create lean content mills.