Not being the devil's advocate here, but "online disinformation" is not a credentialed field. That's like calling yourself a "truth expert".
Also the prestigious part is bogus at best. If they are then they sure don't make the headlines often.
Democratic election politics being a public trust game, at their core.
Basically Media Matters juiced the X algorithm to give them less than 10 impressions of big ad spend clients ads next to anti-semitic comments they entered on their own sock puppet accounts (with few or little followers), then passed that contrivance off as truth, stating brand-destroying anti-semitic content is rampant on X. Where are the disinformation experts now decrying MM's bullshit? Where will they be in 30-36 months after X sues MM into oblivion? Hint: likely silent at their desks. Just as they have been over numerous lies targeting non-liberal narrative-busting realities.
This problem is not US centric. Every western country has developed these people like a rash. Universities are overflowing with left wing radicals who spend their time on activism instead of research, the only thing that's new is the tactic of claiming to be fact checkers. It's really hard to feel sorry for the firing of someone who should never have had a job in the first place.
And it really is late stage civ stuff. Journalists are supposed to be the "disinformation experts". This has always been a false narrative, but in recent years the public percieves enough deception from he Press that trust in their proclamations has fallen through the floor. Enter "disinformation experts" as a cheap last-ditch attempt at an appeal to authority fallacy by the same distrusted media. It will and is failing as well. As it should.
There was also experts on lobotomy who won Nobel Prices. All of whom were assumed to be truthful and knowledgeable and yet was disinformation in its own right.
It sounds like your view is that no one can be an expert on disinformation because some topics are disputed. That's an "interesting" take. I guess that reasoning would leave pretty few experts in the world.
Experts are often self appointed as well. If I was to declare myself an expert in an obscure area you don't understand by making wild claims that sound plausible it would be hard to say I wasn't and if some peers accepted it it would be even harder to deny it.
An expert shouldn't be self appointed and if nobody trustworthy calls someone an expert they shouldn't be considered one too. If you consider someone an expert on your own by their knowledge it's different.
Other than the fact that "disinformation expert" is a fake expertise invented to facilitate fallacious appeal to authority in the void left by a distrusted press:
There are two answers to your question.
First, everyone attempts to derive the truth from imperfect information and therefore is a "disinformation expert".
There's no consistently guaranteed information access that makes any one person consistently an expert above most others, including Joe at his coffee table.
That type of access and divulsion used to be assumed of the MSM. They destroyed their trust, and so now "disinformation experts" demand that trust. Broadley speaking, they won't get it. And they shouldn't.
The second reason is that comprehensive presentation of any truthful information requires a presentation of all facts regarding it. Aside from the most mundane fact checking tasks, I've broadley observed "fact checkers" disseminating disinformation as much as the MSM does. Whether the method is lying by ommission or another.
She's basically the Francis Crick of declaring Facebook memes not entirely true.
Links can be "discovered" ad infinitum.