It's not different mate. Unless you can convince me that being seen as a joke is worse for a news channel than it is for a prime minister. In fact, I'd be willing to bet good money that the people behind GBNews are a lot of the same people that were behind the Johnson campaign. And all the other alt right hits.
Put it another way; if I share one of the funny videos, for every ten people that watch it, nine of them will just go 'Hugh Janus- lol' and move on with their life. But the tenth person will go 'Hugh Janus, lol, mind you they make a good point about kids not playing outside enough'. Then they'll click the next video, and the algorithm will start recommending more and more to them. Repeat that a few million times and you've got an audience.
Ridicule stopped working years ago when people realised you could trade your own dignity for clicks.
Your point is not unreasonable. I would even agree that ridicule is not as powerful as it once was. But, with the Internet, you also need to factor in the danger of the ridicule going viral, growing out of control far more quickly than any company might attempt to respond (
if they can respond). What might work for an individual like Katie Hopkins,* will not work for a terrestrial TV news network. And, again, Johnson is not the same thing. I think he's a fucking idiot, but his deliberate joker/clown persona (which a large enough people seem to actually like) is not equivalent to mass, uninvited ridicule. It certainly is not equivalent to a 'serious news network'.
Further, big brand advertisers are not interested in utlilising niche outlets which will at the same time alienate a huge chunk of their customers. I do not know the business plan for Gbeebies, but it certainly will not be predicated on remaining very niche, the butt of jokes, and the alienation of large advertisers.
* Note: it even eventually blew up in Hopkins's face, costing her home and access to her favourite platform for spreading her hatred. And she's a nobody.
