Research and fact checking is what separates journalists from hacks.
"Journalist" implies factual information, not science fiction. If someone writes a "news" story about the magic land of Xanth because they can't tell the difference between a Piers Anthony novel and a scientific study it's not Piers Anthony's fault for being too "tricky".

Vetting sources is the one thing we need journalists for. If they don't vet their sources, their work is without merit.

Reading at least the methodology section of a paper and googling if the researchers and the institute exists, is the bare minimum of what a decent journalist should do.

If they can't do that, then there's no advantage of a journalist over some random person posting on Facebook. Even Youtubers usually vet their sources better.

I don't have a source but I've always heard it as "according to everything we know about aerodynamics bumblebees shouldn't be able to fly but they do anyway." People use it as motivation, or to justify ignoring proven science.

(Edited to fix swype errors)