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".
The predominant viewpoint in modern day journalism is that a true headline that is technically correct and gets page views is a good headline.
This is the first sign of bad faith communication in the article (misleading with facts).
Example (ficticious) controversial headline:
"Scientists extremely concerned that new variant will kill more children."
Two scientists, and only two dead kids globally (so, less than the current variant), and this is a fine thing to say, apparently.
The goal of a good journalist, in their mind, is to be technically correct while selling papers by getting people to assume the headline means:
"The scientific consensus is that a larger percentage of children will die from the next Covid variant".
No minds were changed during the argument, but I think we both learned something.