That was too subtle.
The question is, whether or not Zeeya's job is, as you aver it is, to " ... try to figure out where the train did leave the tracks, or else step off the edge into the multiverse" (or into supersymmetry or whatever other part of "mainstream science" you don't like). Why would you suppose that, and what is the moral impact of your decision? Yes, I know that you don't have the power to order journalists around in order to give your beliefs and others a "tactical" advantage. The relevant issue is, what if you did? Would you, like the media barons, judge the news by your own set of beliefs? ... and what does that have to do with science journalism, anyway?
Fact is, science journalism *has* a standard of judgment that separates "mainstream" thinking from speculation, independent of anyone's personal beliefs. Science is rational. However imaginative a theory, it has to meet that test, whether in thought experiment or by direct observation.
It's arguable whether rationalism has a general moral obligation apart from science. Sean Carroll thinks so, however, and I agree with him:
"There are real moral questions that confront us every day, and as a society we're still burdened with a slapdash pre-rational way of answering them. I look forward to the day when there is a consensus theory of secular moral philosophy that forms a basis for democratic discourse ..."
A tactical advantage for independent journalism is democracy for us all -- or as Jefferson put it, "If given a choice between government without newspapers or newspapers without government, I would not hesitate to choose the latter." (from memory, so the quote may not be verbatim.)
And this, from a man who was regularly pilloried in the early American free press.