I've only skimmed this thread. I got the gist, though.
I want to say that as a professional science writer, all my pieces are fact checked by independent fact checkers. Any good "lay" science magazine has a fact checking department. Every single fact, every quote, is checked. My editor told me that 75 errors is not uncommon for a good, well-written feature article.
A writer is not really capable of fact checking themselves, as they are too close to their own material and words.
A thought is for Cort to assemble a team of science professionals he respects on this board--I've seen references by some on here to being biologists, for instance (perhaps out of work now as sick), and put up a draft on a Google docs URL for a few days to get commentary. Opinion is out, facts are in. If he made a few factual errors they point out, he can go back to the source to clarify. Then he can publish. If people are pissed because he mentioned someone on "buzz" they don't like, too bad. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the fine parsing of scientific detail which, if you aren't the actual research scientists involved, you can sometimes get wrong. A little wrong is a lot wrong in science because even a tiny error is large.
It's one possible way to sort of fact-check, though it isn't equivalent to professional fact-checking.
People should go easy on Cort. It's not easy to assimilate all this data, and even the best science writers paid top dollar routinely make errors. He probably feels its incumbent on PR to digest the news.
Another option as well is occasionally have a guest article he invites that interprets new scientific findings.
Cort should choose these people among those who are smart and not argumentative.
It amazes me how much time people have to waste blathering on boards. And how all their despair and fury at being sick gets conveniently directed at online "monikers"--the invisible "others". It's not very graceful or considerate.