The interesting parts are the corporate corruption and its mechanisms, the government corruption that causes, and the political instability that flows from that. That in turn affects the world. But given the HuffPo's audience, my guess is that "corporate corruption" is the hottest topic; it's certainly the most obvious and most clearly illegal bit. So click-bait style aside, it's not a bad headline.
That's not to say that the headline couldn't be improved. Just that from the headline writer's point of view, there is utility in the second sentence.
That last bit seems tautological to me. Of course there's utility in the second sentence from the headline writer's point of view, otherwise they wouldn't have put it there. The issue with "clickbait" is that the headline writer's utility diverges from the reader's utility.
I don't see how that works. If the name is obscure, and we should know about it, put it in the headline.
That kind of headlines definitely turn me away. "Here's why we should care" is typically preceding a text which says nothing useful about why we should care. I just won't read articles headlined like this, because they feel like an insult.
Click-bait headlines are marginally more irritating than people in the comment section calling out a click-bait headline.
We get it, they happen.