Create a bureaucracy that will still largely be corrupt (from one side or there other) and get things massively wrong?

I'm actually more for community tools to do moderation correctly and for content to be moderated by "people I trust" within the community. So for example if someone who I've marked as trustworthy on science reporting marks a science story as fake news it's flagged for those of us who have marked the flagger as an authority.

People will say you are just encouraging echo chambers like this but I actually think it's inevitable and we all live in echo chambers. Having your views challenged is extremely hard work that we don't always have time or the inclination to work through day to day. Everyone is watching a different movie.

I would start with having knowledgeable people doing the fact checking. Next, since it will not always be possible to get every fact check right the first time, allow for fact checking results to be revised. Exactly what BMJ asks for.