Expertise and Chess Journalism

In my work on the 1921 World Chess Championship, I became interested in a spat between Hartwig Cassel, a journalist, who suggested that Emanuel Lasker should have concentrated more on his chess, leaving the writing to journalists and Lasker, who for his part challenged Cassel's ethics and competence.

What is the role of chess expertise in writing about chess competition?

A case study: Hartwig Cassel writing about the Capablanca -- Lasker World Chess Championship one hundred years ago.

An extract comparing Cassel's comment on the critical error to the comments of the players:

29.Kh2?
"A blunder, made under time pressure combined with difficulties attached to the position" (Capablanca, 29).
"Also, a serious mistake. It would better to play Rf3-e3. Possible was and a2-a4" (Lasker, 30).
29...Ng4+
"[B]oldly invited" by Lasker (Cassel, 6).
"Winning an exchange and the game" (Lasker, 30).

And some related context:
Near the end of Mein Wettkampf mit Capablanca (1922), Lasker addressed the differences between a responsible chess press, as he saw it, consisting mostly of master commentators, and the work of journalists with limited understanding.

The press in general has behaved worthily and meritoriously. The reporting and criticism have high responsibility. Messrs. Helms, Burn, Schelfhout, Mieses, Dr. Tarrasch--leaders of the chess press in the United States, England, Holland and Germany--made a factual, reasoned judgment. Good chess criticism includes, in addition to objectivity, a love of the game of chess and an understanding of master chess: that is why these chess writers stand out from the others. Mr. Hartwig Cassel is indifferent to the game of chess. (37)

Here's a link to more detail (not necessary to weigh in, of course):  http://chessskill.blogspot.com/2021/04/lasker-capablanca-game-14.html

wow! a centenarian!

Or historian.