The gist of your argument is that there should be some central authority that verifies scientific results before the media consumes them. That's a noble goal, but I'm afraid I can't hold out any hope for it.
Science can't dictate to the media what they publish, nor should it. Let's accept that scientists and journalists adhere to the covenant of attempting to disclose the truth, but sometimes they get it wrong. By publishing things that are both right and wrong, they can hope to arrive at the truth eventually, through the process of peer review. Given enough freedom, the truth tends to win. That holds for the media as well as science.
But creating a central authority, no matter how well-intentioned, that attempts to confirm the truth, is doomed to undermine the freedom that makes all of the above possible. The truth is the truth. It's not what some authority says it is.
Imperfect as it is, the process of peer review before and after publication, is a viable method for evaluating scientific results prior to their publication. Mistakes will happen, and they will be corrected, sometimes immediately, and sometimes more slowly. But they will be corrected.