So if you don't readily find a link on Google that indicates a given journalist's specialism, then he/she is a "nonspecialist". Likewise, you also automatically classify journalists from e.g. the AP or Reuters as "nonspecialists", apparently unaware that each of these organizations employs thousands of journalists, many of whom are indeed specialized in health / medicine. And "foreign media outlets" have specialized journalists too, in the case of the NYT probably a half dozen who write only about health and medicine. So your study eagerly tries to point out that ignorant mainstream journalists too frequently get things wrong when they write about the rarefied field of medicine, but, and so ironically, your ignorance of contemporary journalism renders this research meaningless from the get go.
