I presume you all expect journalists for their 60K or whatever per year to have intimate and specialised knowledge of every subject that might ever be likely to warrant a news item?
No, all I want are "the verified facts". As tsnake correctly states, verified facts are news.
A "specialised knowledge" of a journalist in a field the journalist is reporting can (although not always) be dangerous. It is possible that a journo can inadvertently put their "spin" on the facts using their specialised knowledge they hold.
I also have no problem with a report containing no jargon, or describing, for example, an aircraft system in less than precise technical terms, or quoting witnesses verbatim of an event those witnesses saw. A quote is a quote, and is no less a fact than the event itself.
What I do have a problem with is inaccurate FACTS. It undermines the veracity of the whole report - what other facts then, do you take as correct when a stated fact is incorrect?
A report that dogmatically states as fact something that is not correct cannot be "news" by the very definition given by tsnake.
Therefore, binos, your following statement:
So someone called a Cheyenne a Navajo? Well, ding my chimes! May as well read no further; the journalist is clearly a mug! In fact, I would have to ask the critics why they bother reading newspapers at all?
though dripping with sarcasm, has merit.
A journo is a mug when the journalism is sloppy, not because they do not have specialist knowledge.
As you say
I have grave problems with tabloid journalism, and I avoid it like the plague. I often wonder how intelligent people can write the crap they are asked to write and still sleep at night. On the other hand, the work of good journalists and their ability to sum up complex issues demanding lots of specialised knowledge as well as they do often amazes me.
it's just a matter of identifying the good from the bad - which is not that easy.