When an "expert" routinely gets answers wrong, they are by definition no longer an expert.
I will keep shouting this axiom from the rooftops until it stops being relevant. Journalists need to make it a mantra they repeat everyday.
Doesn't matter if they have a PhD next to their name.
Doesn't matter if they have a fancy C-suite title.
Doesn't matter if they have a fancy government position.
Science is fundamentally about using past knowledge to predict future events. An expert is someone who has a good predictive model of the world.
Most so-called "experts" are lazy, they reason by analogy, not first-principles. Therefore they keep predicting things wrong. This should immediately disqualify any and all claim to the term "expert", and be booted swiftly from our "expert-class". Yet, they keep getting quoted in the press.
Continuing to raise up these voices does immense harm to the commons, and the blame for that is squarely on the shoulders of journalists.
Journalists who are too lazy to actually think deeply; instead just appealing to whatever authority their ideological tribe recognizes.
Being an expert should be the ultimate meritocracy. Your status as an expert should be directly proportional to the accuracy of your world model.
By this definition, most academics and arm-chair commentators are little more than actors playing journalists like fiddles.
Expertise is important.
Journalism is important.
Both soon to be irrelevant due to their own ego and hubris.