I am not so sure; there's rarely a strong incentive to misrepresent a paper on e.g. number theory, but that is not the case when it comes to issues in politics or business. We already see this to some extent with Wikipedia-- the pages on math and hard science are generally accurate and well-written. Biographies are much more a mixed-bag, even aside from the fact that the subject themselves can edit their page, I know there are companies that offer to create or manage wiki pages for PR purposes.

It might be better to take an approach similar to "open science". Have the reporters publish their raw footage and interview transcripts to address misrepresentation/cherry-picking, and get them to commit to answering follow-up questions from readers to allow the readers to get additional information. Having more of a back-and-forth could improve the quality of the reporting, allow for spurious objections to be debunked, or ensure that the author gets taken to task if their bias taints the story.

This seems time/capital intensive and therefore impractical in the age of listicles, but on further consideration I realize that many "name brand" bloggers popular on HN essentially follow this model-- for example, Matt Levine and Brian Krebs. However it's not clear whether their model can be applied to all areas of journalistic interest instead of specific niches, or if it requires a rare kind of individual to make it work.