If you think that's what writing is about, you're not a writer. You're a blogger (and a lazy one at that). A writer knows the difference is, a blogger does not.
I agree with some of your points, but not with others.
I should have clarified better:
one of the points of writing online articles is to generate clicks. It's pretty much implied that this goes hand in hand with an article of substance (a point I expanded on in my original reply).
Much of writing's value, not all but a lot, comes from the number of people that want to read something. Online, that means the number of views.
It would be incorrect to think that every major newspaper and magazine have a website simply for the fun and pleasure and art of writing. There is, obviously, a direct commercial imperative. I'm not sure I understand your point about me being a blogger, as, of all online journalism, bloggers are in the majority of those who
don't write with a commercial imperative as many of them don't get much money for the views that they generate. What business models of writing don't rely on a readership?
How much writing in quality publications do you think is done without the notion in mind of things that lots of people would want to read, or 'click on'? What possible merit do you think writing something that nobody wants to read has?
I'm also not a blogger (well, I am, but not in this instance). The website isn't a blog, it's an arts and entertainment listings and editorial website. 'Lazy' was just a low blow, but I'll bite: the pitching, research and writing of this article blows that notion out of the water.
There's also a general misunderstanding in what 'clickbait' actually is. This article is not 'clickbait' - an example of 'clickbait' generally refers to a headline which encourages people to click through to the article at the expense of quality or accuracy, relying on sensationalist headlines. Clickbaits rely on the 'curiosity gap', in that a headline has just enough information to warrant a reader's interest, but not enough to make them truly satisfied until they've read the whole article. The headline (and subheader) to this article was neither sensationalist, nor inaccurate, in fact it sums up what's in the article. It's not 'clickbait' as it's is clearly the choice of the reader whether or not they want to read an article about what's stated in the headline.
I'm also interested in your last sentence: 'A writer knows [what] the difference is, a blogger does not.' The difference between what and what?