In the sprit of TFA, let me try to steel man their argument, with which I don't agree.
Effective communication requires nuance, and definitionally nuances are subtle, and therefore are often difficult to convey in a terse way.
Headlines definitionally are restricted in length. So we can say that nuance and headlines are natural enemies.
Therefore, the best thing a headline can do is to direct a reader toward nuance, which hopefully is contained within the article. So an article that gets page views is not just good for the publisher, but it's also good for discourse in general.
But what about technically correct? Well, I think it's safe to say that a headline that gets clicks but is technically wrong is not what we want. Then let's consider technically correct, what does that even mean? To me, I'd really have to hear the argument in full, but in the spirit of steel manning I'd have to think what they meant was "factually correct", as "technically correct" has some negative connotation having to do focusing on facts while ignoring or discounting more salient issues.
Then again, due to the limited nature of a headline, some or even most of the context must be elided. So really I think the difference between something being "factually correct" and "technically correct" is intent to deceive through lies of omission.
Given the above, I would say a good headline is one which drives the reader to nuance and does so in a way which is factually correct, which I could see characterized as "technically correct and gets page views".
Effective communication requires nuance, and definitionally nuances are subtle, and therefore are often difficult to convey in a terse way.
Headlines definitionally are restricted in length. So we can say that nuance and headlines are natural enemies.
Therefore, the best thing a headline can do is to direct a reader toward nuance, which hopefully is contained within the article. So an article that gets page views is not just good for the publisher, but it's also good for discourse in general.
But what about technically correct? Well, I think it's safe to say that a headline that gets clicks but is technically wrong is not what we want. Then let's consider technically correct, what does that even mean? To me, I'd really have to hear the argument in full, but in the spirit of steel manning I'd have to think what they meant was "factually correct", as "technically correct" has some negative connotation having to do focusing on facts while ignoring or discounting more salient issues.
Then again, due to the limited nature of a headline, some or even most of the context must be elided. So really I think the difference between something being "factually correct" and "technically correct" is intent to deceive through lies of omission.
Given the above, I would say a good headline is one which drives the reader to nuance and does so in a way which is factually correct, which I could see characterized as "technically correct and gets page views".