In my personal experience, yes, but there is a degree in overlap since many journalists do have a history degree, while many historians engage in "popular" history, intended to appeal to a wide audience, often focusing on topics and issues that are very prominent. Especially in the realm of political biographies, the boundary between journalism and history is porous.

For instance, virtually all biographies on Richard Nixon are popular history, written by journalists, but who often do have a degree in history. Academic works on Nixon are rare.

The difference is often in how the past is treated. For journalists, the past is often a background against which the present is explained or compared. So journalists writing a biography about Nixon today will quickly (and anachronistically) compare it to the present day situation in the US, Trump, impeachment and political tensions. Rather than writing about Nixon, they end up writing about the present through the lens of the Watergate scandal (for example). For journalism the past itself is only relevant if it can tell something about the present or if hitherto unknown facts have a direct impact on the present.

Above all, journalists are not going to bother their readers with academic and methodological problems, and explain the limits of their method, the limits of "knowing the past", the problems of their sources, and how their research contributes to wider academic discussions on the topic.

For historians, the academic ones, that aspect has much more gravity. More often than not, historians don't study a topic (such as Nixon or Watergate), but they will study a broader phenomenon through the lens of that topic. So for example, there are academic works on the social history of America through the Nixon era. Nixon, and his policies, are studied to contribute to a broader historical discussion on the social developments in America. Of course I am greatly simplifying, but here I am treating the subject of Nixon to show where journalists would make different choices in their approach as historians.

Historians draw a divide between the "past", that which took place, and "history", that which has been written about the past. Historians engage above all with the latter, and they try to offer new interpretations or engage in discussions with fellow historians or rival interpretations. Some will try new methodologies, or take up a different perspective (for example, women, or a minority, or that of other unexplored source material).

Journalists won't bother their audience with it, unless theyre reviewing a new history book maybe. For journalists, their goal may be pure infotainment, informing the public, or exposing something. So maybe they write about Nixon to detail the man's madness to entertain the crowd, or they write about him to inform the public of how the politics of impeachment works, but it could also be that they want to expose some other crime he committed and that the public should know about. Im still being entirely hypothetical here.

The overlap occurs when historians engage in popular history, or journalists with a history degree engage in popular topics about the past, written in an accurate, well-researched, but accessible manner for a wide audience. The majority of the history books section in most bookstores will consist of high quality popular history works, but written genuine historians, who have earned their reputations and decided to reach out to wider public, and building on years of academic research.

But in those sections you will also easily find a biography of Putin, Churchill, or Nixon, with a "New York Times best seller" sticker on it, written by a reporter with decades of experience and solid historical knowledge. In that way, I imagine, the lines between history and journalism get very blurry.

I hope this is a helpful answer to you. I can provide some generic literature suggestions on the study of history if you want. I want to conclude that there are differences, but there is not a hard boundary. One could perhaps even speak of a "spectrum", with hardcore esoteric post-modernist historians hiding in the dark corners of the Academia on one end, and the popular journalistic biographers of famous politicians and generals on the other end.