Separate advertising revenue from news and you’ll get a more honest take on a subject. This system encourages not just fake news but manufactured controversy.
And if you have the most unbiased source out there, someone else with an agenda can push it as an us vs. them narrative and cause the potential audience to simply avoid your site (or view it in their lens).
What you need is someone who can present real news as entertainment instead of presenting entertainment as real news, which is what he did in a way that none of his acolytes have faithfully replicated (not even when they were on the same show in the same episode). Because you have to be willing to make fun of anyone for being wrong instead of just making fun of The Other Team for being The Other Team.
But in general it feels like there is an answer in that format. Because people want to be entertained. If they're not being entertained then you've lost them. But you can entertain them and inform them at the same time, if you actually take that as a goal and consciously work toward it. A good professor doesn't bore the students yet they still learn the material.
But there is a difference between that and just making partisan propaganda humorous enough to get people to watch it.
Unltimately, even the best idea is useless without buy-in by the masses and policy makers. Right now most people simply don't understand or accept the situation either due to lack of factual and audience-appropriate information or due to lack of information sources they trust that present the facts to them. Like it or not,tech is how information spreads and technologists have a lot of say in the outcome of this.
Tech aside,like many other factual information, climate change is presented as a fact people have to accept along with other scientific beliefs. What I mean is, people who are not confident in their own ability to objectively assess the facts rely on the trustworthiness of the people presenting the facts. Climate change should not be presented as an "Us vs Them" issue (obviously) and it needs to be presented in a way that does not challenge any other commonly held beliefs people might have. You can't challenge someone's sacred beliefs (whatever that might be) and also present factual information they're not able to independently verify and expect them to accept the latter and reject the former,it just doesn't work that way. This is mostly why I suggested neutral platforms that instill a strong level of confidence for every audience are needed.
Unfortunately, all I see is climate change being presented like any other scientific fact and on platforms that don't have the confidence of the majority of audiences. You need everyone from the cowboy rancher in texas to the lumberjack in brazil working on cutting down trees in the amazon to buy in.
Solutions like mass reforestation by essentially bombing the planet with seed planting pods seem promising and countries are increasingly switching to renewable energy sources. It all just needs mass buy-in so the solutions can take effect before it's too late.