I should have clarified my perspective as someone who as a kid once planned to be a sports journalist and was raised on Around the Horn. I was largely introduced to journalism through sports journalism and I didn't necessarily have a *bad* view of sports journalists, but I definitely saw as more of an art than a science.
Basically, sports journalism was the first mode through which sports audiences could really argue - as pedantically as can be imagined - points about sports: the extra point is worthless, the DH should be abolished, John Elway is overrated, running back production is a product of offensive lines, and an endless sea of even less scientific assertions (i.e. my team/player is best, our team/player sucks, etc.). It's a point of contact to journalism where the real currency is opinion, not investigative facts. Probably 95% of sports journalists did/do no original reporting since leagues and teams bottleneck that through specific sources.
So if that's your point of contact with journalism - a glorified "here's my arbitrary rant" profession - it makes sense that you form incorrect assumptions about the broader profession outside of sports.