Well it's what I would call the "scholar fallacy"

I might have a BS in bullshit. Be an expert in the line of bovine scat and its contents. But that doesn't necessarily give me cause to comment on guano. And if I say something stupid like "male bats pee standing up", and some uneducated country bumpkin laughs at how stupid it is, it doesn't mean the bumpkin is wrong and I'm right simply because I've got the BS in BS.

Scholarly writing and universities are all about making content for grants and shit. There really isn't much we can point to that isn't influenced heavily by the economic realities. In many ways a researcher isn't much different from a YouTuber, one makes content to satisfy those giving them grants for whatever reason, one makes content to satisfy the dual needs of viewers and advertisers. Both are beholden to kiss the hand that feeds them.

Education is no substitute for wisdom. The uneducated bumpkin may be smarter than the cloistered scribe, although one must understand that the difference in communication style doesn't bely intelligence.

I think most of the issue comes from journalists though. Also beholden to make content. They'll sensationalize any scientific papers they can get ahold of. "Scientists find a new Earth!" Being the headline for an article that actually says "scientists find evidence of possible planet similar to the size of earth with a margin of error of several hundred percent, located in a possible orbit that brings the temperature to several thousand degrees" you know just like home.