This, like most things, should probably be approached with science. A set of standards, established by experts in the field, and made known through marketing expertise. Just a few mainstream news sites picking it up could cause a cascade and set a change in motion.

Writing about anything does not make much sense unless the author has some knowledge of the subject, whether they are journalists or not. 

There are a vast numbers of people with science backgrounds who write out of their own specialist area and frequently come up with rubbish. Even those with titles, including academic ones, by which they purport to be knowledgeable in any particular field, still manage to write materials that show they do not really understand their subject, or that part of it; their certainty and arrogance is inversely proportional to their actual knowledge and experience.

The problem is not just with science. In a world heavily dependent on technology, it is inevitable that there will be occasional failures and here is a tendency for journalists to go running to scientists for explanations. In particular, I have read of comments along that line about rocket launch failures where journalists have gone running to scientists and asked them for answers rather than engineers and the scientists have been at a loss to answer. Engineering is not science, or even applied science, it is much more. Rocket science is not science; it is engineering structures, dynamics of structures, engineering materials, chemistry, engineering thermodynamics (not the same as classical thermodynamics), fluid flow, aerodynamics, etc. etc., quite apart from the manufacturing production engineering side.

There is a particularly well known scientist and prolific writer who frequently takes the approach, “now, looking at this from an engineer’s point of view … ”, then proceeds to write, or expound, as a scientist, not as an engineer; he assumes and presumes too much for his knowledge and experience.

Whatever subject one writes about, it is highly advisable to at least know enough to be able to ask questions of appropriately knowledgeable and experienced people, as well as produce a coherent article on the basis of that.

For how not to write large tracts of Wikipedia are excellent examples, especially in my non-engineering, non-mainstream science subject areas, though even he mainstream parts of Wikipedia are not that brilliant.

My engineering, technology and science background is fairly broad. I also have many years, at least two decades, of knowledge and experience of areas, subjects, with which mainstream science struggles, to put it mildly. I always try to make sure that what I write is coherent and well reasoned and endeavour to tread carefully when I stray, or need to go, outside of my strong areas of knowledge and expertise. My standards of writing, English language and science (approach to rather than levels of knowledge) are more of the 1950s to 1970s era; it has “dumbed down” a great deal in the U.K. in recent decades. For substantial writing I endeavour to approach engineering report standard; even my book manuscript, which is autobiographical but unique in a particular way, is acknowledged by my editor, to be close to engineering report level; even following her red mark suggestions for alteration should not detract too much from that.