There's an irony or perverse incentive here.
The more wrong the article is, the more likely it will be remembered and pointed to through time. This means an article like this will continue to make more ad revenue than a peer that was correct in its predictions.
Journalists and pundits are never punished for getting stuff wrong. (Look at the 90% percent of them that didn't see the housing crash coming in 2008.)
The lesson seems to be to make the most outrageous and wrong claims possible to be click-bait for both the short term and long haul.