Journalists vs. Editorialists vs. Experts

RE: "Earlier discussion
Jane Taber took questions on the Bernier resignation
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080527.wlivetaber0527/BNStory/National/
JANE TABER
May 27, 2008 at 7:51 AM EDT"

I have a question for this newspaper. Since when did a journalist become an authority on subjects? They are biased and report and create editorials based on the newspaper's political viewpoint and biases.

I know that Jane Taber, for example, has had great opportunities to cover politics and is often on CBO on a panel, but when did we begin to see journalists as experts?
It is one thing to write about a subject, to report on it and to be interviewed, but quite another thing to be seen to be an expert and to be able to answer questions from on-line readers.

I am concerned that the media has moved from reporting to interpreting (which is based on their experience, knowledge and research) to now giving their opinions as truth. I am not being disrespectful of highly regarded journalists, but simply questioning the purpose in this. Sometimes, the viewers/internet users have more knowledge and experience than the journalists, but not often. On the other end of the spectrum what is the reason for the 'man-in-the-street' polls and interviews? We take as gospel truth the opinions of those casually approached in TV Media, the Globe publishes polls with viewer responses. This violates all aspects of good research validity and reliability. I continue to be amazed that media devotes pixels, ink and air time to these pieces.

I would prefer that the Media deliver the news.