Nice turn of phrase but poor analogy. Being a journalist requires little in the way of basic skills, plus the people being put forward as professional journalists have routinely breached even the low standards of their so-called profession.
For example, the WashPost, probably second only to the NYT in terms of self-adulation, published not one but two laughably fake articles recently. One accused numerous legit websites of being in cahoots with Russian disinformation campaigns. It turned out that the "reporting" behind the story consisted of relying entirely on a report produced by an unknown internet site. The Post had to shamefacedly withdraw the story after threats of litigation.
The other was even more outrageous. In the midst of the Russian hacking fake news controversy, they published an alarmist story that the nation's electric power grid had been hacked by Russia. Turned out it was completely false. One laptop, not connected to the grid or anything else, supposedly had malware that "could" have come from Russian sources. Like Podesta's email hack ,it also could have come from a potentially infinite list of other sources, since it was commercially available on hacker sites.
The public despises the media elites and for good reason. They see these self-appointed arbiters of truth and news as dishonest, biased, petty, vindictive and increasingly more interested in pushing radical agendas than doing their jobs.
