I've heard the theory that humor is actually a censor mechanism, to inhibit learning nonsense.
So, IIUC, if the censor identifies something nonsensical, it throws the amusement switch, to keep your brain from integrating the wrong thing.
While we might think that the presentations of fact in the article are informative, the humor-saturated prose could be a good way to cloud any thinking about the topic.
Does this mean it's OK to mention expanding the Florida Everglades? One could plan out a path of bulldozing, excavation, and flood fills, given an existing map of gerrymandering for national elections.