Oh, this is much more my style. I very much agree with the premise. However, the missing piece in this concerns how little reporters understand some of the things they report on. Science reporting, for example, has too many laymen who know nothing about the scientific method and how to tell one crazy study from one sane one. People who don't know the difference between statistical correlation, causation, and just randomness. Or even just a poorly constructed experiment.
Many of these knowledge gaps coming to the revolution in media cost-cutting over the past 20-30 years where expensive, knowledgable, experienced types were replaced wholesale by far cheaper, more attractive, younger, and more clueless reporting substitutes.