I think the article attempts to demonstrate with its examples that some of the titles don't actually accurately represent what ought to be the core takeaways of

I think the article attempts to demonstrate with its examples that some of the titles don't actually accurately represent what ought to be the core takeaways of a news story. Selected excerpts: "I actually watched this interview—all two hours of it—and I can tell you that the first two headlines are a much better summary of what went down. Yes, Meghan does reveal that she contemplated suicide, but it’s a five-minute interlude in an interview that has a lot more going on." "Trump starts off addressing conservatives and claiming leadership of G.O.P. but in the final headline Trump has a hit list and is firing a warning shot. And sure enough, the bombastic rhetoric propels this article onto the “most viewed” list." In other words, while you're correct that titles are important for clarity, the claim in the article is that "clarity" can be at odds with what gets clicks (or gets upvoted). I'm able to viscerally internalize this because, as a tech worker, I've typically used A/B testing as a tool to maximize engagement, but I've never in my career used it as a tool to maximize correctness or "clarity".