I understand the pressures. In my previous job I had similar ones when the Feds came out with something and I had to interpret it in one page for people who neither know nor care about the details. That doesn't mean you get a break; I never did either, and had to answer some nasty phone calls when the one-pager didn't cover everything (which it couldn't, with proposed and final rules and guidance coming out in the hundreds of pages each).

One would think that the "grapevine" would eventually get the word that trains in the U.S. have "engineers" not "drivers", unless they're local transit. And NONE of them have a "conductor" operating the train unless you are writing in Spanish. However, I also understand that most news stories these days are not in fact written by journalists in the old sense at all - they're written by some service, often overseas, that scrapes a little data from web sites and writes up a short blurb for sale.

So I don't give "journalists" a break. There are precious few of them around any more, and I am pleasantly surprised when a story looks like it was at least reviewed by one. Some of the Hoboken stories actually looked that - I noted one that referred to the operator as "engineer or driver" which is probably as close as we'll get these days, and a lot better than the usual "conductor." The problem isn't really with the few journalists left, IMO, as much as it is the management which has eliminated nearly all editing and proofreading in order to push stuff out to the internet as quickly as it can be produced.