I used to drive a truck and would listen to Catholic Answers for the sole purpose of critiquing its theological content. I noted dozens of problematic statements, errors and simple stupidity. I'm not sure which is worse, the presumption of a man who assumes the position of teacher and attempts to answer theological questions live in front of thousands of people or the complete lack self awareness that he is theologically ignorant.
Certainly, as has been pointed out earlier, some topics are better left to the clergy.
Some, but not all.
Topics which are specifically doctrinal/dogmatic or moral might fall under this category, but historical, political, economic subjects (eg., such as those previously written about by Chesterton, Walsh, Belloc, Louis Veuillot, Hamish Fraser, or Jean Madiran, et al) would not represent, I don’t think, an impertinent overstepping of bounds.
And of course, while such commentaries will err here and there, the consequences for such mistakes are less consequential for those who might unwittingly be misled by them than those in the doctrinal realm.
I don’t think the possibility of error should pre-empt an otherwise worthy apostolate. If we all had to possess infallibility before being qualified to speak on matters not directly theological, none of those great names above would ever have written a word, and if it be conceded that the writers who might consider contributing to this apostolate are not on par with such reknowned authors and commentators, still, they might not be entirely devoid of value and benefit for their few listeners.