“Journalists are writers and become historians.”
Nearly all journalists lack the discipline and the intelligence to write a book. There are a very few exceptions who have produced their own books and even best sellers, but just because they sell well does not mean that they will be used in the future by historians. The very fact that they are journalists limits their usefulness to historians as there is a long history in this country of “yellow journalism”. Their biases and inaccuracies are well known and laughed at by those who do history for a living. Journalists are hack writers and are not trusted as primary sources.
In the discipline of history, original documents are required if you wish to be taken seriously. The discipline of history has little to do with journalism as historical writing is mostly butt-grinding research. I might add that the education of a historian is much more rigorous than a mere journalist.
I will repeat again: Very few journalists ever publish a book as they do not have the skills and brains to do so.
How many journalists turn into historians is not that relevant. What is relevant is who are historians, what is their background and do they lean conservative or liberal. In particular who are those people writing history textbooks. When I go through my children’s history books I continually see evidence of liberal bias.
So based on my own observations I dismiss your comments.