Woah, I think you’re reading too much into what GP is suggesting. I think all that GP is pointing out is that news sources that reported on Theranos’ claims credulously and without necessary skepticism have faced basically no criticism (this article doesn’t even bring it up), and therefore have virtually no disincentive from doing the exact same thing with the next Theranos.

Fixing that doesn’t necessarily require an oppressive Orwellian governmental body to dictate truth and punish journalists who veer from the party line. It could be as simple as, after the fact now that we know how fraudulent it was, naming prominent journalists and outlets and pointing out red flags that they should have but failed to highlight, and other similar ways they should have expressed a healthy skepticism but didn’t.