For instance having a track record of wrong predictions in specific economic questions doesn't seem to invalidate your status as an "expert". So what does? And what could an "expert" possible be if there are no usable criteria.
> Rhodes singled out a key example to me one day, laced with the brutal contempt that is a hallmark of his private utterances. “All these newspapers used to have foreign bureaus,” he said. “Now they don’t. They call us to explain to them what’s happening in Moscow and Cairo. Most of the outlets are reporting on world events from Washington. The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That’s a sea change. They literally know nothing.”[1]
Rhodes here is talking about geopolitics, but it extends to everything. So many news outlets don’t actually have many people with practical experience anymore, and so they call random people for quotes.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/magazine/the-aspiring-nov...
And on twitter. It's pure cancer to journalism and "journalists" can't seem to help but do all their reporting from the comfort of their home browsing twitter for the "news" and takes all day. Honestly I think honest journalists should take an "Oath of No Twitter" to keep their jobs.