>The big social problem today is the selection of information.
So, really high quality information for decision makers in relevant fields?
To some extent, the OP surely meant getting professionals access to proper data, but what I would call "general population" news should still be of high quality and integrity. And we the people are decision makers, through public opinion and through formal voting. So having journalists dig into issues and present facts substantiated through research and proof is critical.
A lot of people think that global warming is not caused by human activity. That's not because it is hard to get accurate information about global warming. In fact, it's incredibly easy--it's never been easier!--to learn all you want about global warming, basically for free.[1]
So why doesn't everybody do that? Some people just don't have time, but for a lot of people, they actively reject accurate, useful information that is available to them, for free. Why? That's an important question.
We're not lacking in investigations of global warming. We're lacking in trust in those investigations. Shoveling more information at those people is not going to solve the problem. The messenger matters! It matters more than the message, for a lot of people; it seems like a growing number of people.
So, that's why a new messenger might be good, even if they're not funding substantial new investigations.
[1] For no marginal cost beyond what it costs to access the Internet in general.
"People who need to make decisions" perhaps, rather than "decision makers", which is a loaded terms.
Most specifically: people who are consuming "news" information because it is relevant to their lives, not because it is just part of their continuous feed of info-tainment.
So, really high quality information for decision makers in relevant fields?
To some extent, the OP surely meant getting professionals access to proper data, but what I would call "general population" news should still be of high quality and integrity. And we the people are decision makers, through public opinion and through formal voting. So having journalists dig into issues and present facts substantiated through research and proof is critical.
I think you and OP agree more than you disagree.