Does -proper...

does -proper, classical- journalism require more versatile knowledge than any other well-established profession in the world?
Keep in mind that I'm not talking about magazine journalists or even the average newspaper journalist, I'm talking about the journalist that uncovers and chronicles major world events with complete context.

To be a good –anything, you need to get good at it, so yeah, sure.

Not what I asked. If you want to be good at coding you need to be good at coding. You need to understand your library of code and how to implement it to create a function you desire.
To be good at math you need to be good at the functions of math, logic and creative perspective.
The point is that with journalism, to get proper work done you need not just be investigative, you need to be a diplomat, you need to be a writer, you need to be extremely politically literate(on a level politicians have no need to be), a risk-taker, a philosopher, brave, often physically fit, a historian, and more
My question is, is it the ultimate renaissance profession?
It goes without saying that you need to be good at something to be good at it. I don't see how you got that from my post

*Renaissance man profession

>does -proper, classical- journalism require more versatile knowledge
Yes
>...than any other well-established profession in the world?
No, not necessarily.
I do see what you meant now, sorry for the terse and stupid answer. It is a multifaceted profession and it would of course be good to know all these different aspects of it, or just know a lot of people who could help you out with them.

Being a journalist nowadays basically means being a good shill and having connections

>proper, classical.

>I'm talking about the journalist that uncovers and chronicles major world events with complete context.
might as well call him a contemporary historian then

journalists nowadays are nothing short of propagandists. from the lowly magazine to The Economist or the WSJ, its all about parroting the prepackaged sources or writing the "opinion piece" with all the acceptable talking points and opinions

Proper, classical journalism never really existed. Some writers have managed to do interesting stuff with it though. Some of the eXiles' stuff is gold

No and there's no such thing as "proper, classical" journalism. That's a highly romanticized notion of the job that never existed. Pulitzer and Hearst were scum. It's always been a profession for pushy bastards out to make a buck by spinning things for the average shmuck reader.