Incentives matter, and the underlying problem that gives us clickbait headlines (and fake news, and the rest of our current journalistic ills) is that sites are primarily incentivized to maximize the number of people who show up on the site (so that they load ads and/or can be surveilled) -- hence the chase for "clicks at any cost".
There are two ways to fix this:
1. Somehow change adtech's incentives from "I get paid in proportion to how many clicks I get" to "I get paid in proportion to some other combination of metrics that's a better proxy for quality content (and quality engagement) than 'someone clicked on this and my ads loaded.'"
2. Break the link between advertising and some worthwhile subset of "content that we want to exist in the world" by coming up with a scheme to entice readers to fund the content directly.
I think there's a whole universe of untried startup ideas in both areas. I've been noodling around with an idea for #2 as a side project, and maybe at some point this spring I'll attempt a "Show HN".
Anyway, my ultimate point is that attacking this problem at the level of the content itself -- verifying headlines or rating the "fakeness" of news, etc. -- is the wrong approach, and I think most of the smart people who toss these ideas out know on some level that the proposed cure may end up being worse than the disease.
The fundamental problem is the busted incentive structure. You have to find ways to incentivize the creation of quality content by either rethinking the relationship between advertising and users, or finding a way to get users to pay. There is no third option that's market-based and sustainable.