Generalists

   "I'm not a lawyer, but ..."
   So goes the preliminary defensive excuse voiced by many people before venturing their opinion.
   Since when is there a rule that you need a law degree to have an opinion? Lawyers may be expert in the law, but not necessarily in economics or linguistics or history.
   To precede a comment with the denial of being a lawyer is a copout, and gives more credit to lawyers than they may deserve. They are certainly knowledgeable in definitions and procedures in a legal process -- or at least they should be -- but many are not. Some specialize in real estate law or in civil law or in criminal law or in corporate law. Some are generalists, and know the basic principles of many different fields of The Law, just as physicians may be general practitioners or surgeons or ophthalmologists or pediatricians or some other specialty.
   Similarly, journalists are generalists. They known the basic principles of reporting and writing as well as those of many other fields, so they can understand and report the latest developments in each field. Granted, the more they know about a particular field the better will be their questions and the better their reporting and writing.
   Moreover, many reporters do in fact hold degrees in law, economics, history, sociology, political science and other fields, so you will not hear a reporter say something like, "I'm not a lawyer, but ..." because the reporter may well be a lawyer.
   As for what the news may mean, that's another story. Reporters' opinions are not relevant to what they do. They may or they may not have opinions, but objective and neutral journalism requires that they keep their opinions out of the story.
   That said, it is also true that some who call themselves reporters are neither objective nor neutral. Generally, that is also clear to readers and viewers of many outlets that purport to practice neutral journalism.
   To their credit, however, many (call them "information outlets" instead of "news operations.") clearly state their political leanings.
   It's up to viewers to understand that some hosts of information programs are in reality commentators, not neutral reporters. Examples include people like Sean Hannity of the Fox network and Ari Melber of MSNBC. Neither has a journalistic background, even as they work in the general field of journalism.
  There is, moreover, a time and a place for analysis and comment in news media, both print and broadcast. These items are clearly marked as interpretation and opinion, compared to straight news reporting.
   On the print side of journalism, newspapers clearly label editorial and opinion pieces as such, and put them on a separate page, or even in a special section.
   Even those that appear on Page One, though they generally resemble straight news stories, show their interpretive or opinion stance in two ways -- by a label, such as "News Analysis" at the top of the story, and by setting the type in what's called "ragged right margins," compared to the "justified" type for straight news stories.
 Their function is to comment on what a news development means, not just what it is.
   Unfortunately, some political leaders have yet to learn the difference between news and comment, and expect full and absolute agreement with everything they say and do.
   That's not a democracy, but a dictatorship.   "I'm not a lawyer, but ..."