She doesn't come off well in those comments, but neither does the Forbes writer. Journalistic etiquette and best practice is to ask someone for comment if you're going to be writing about her. Ideally, you should make that attempt in earnest and in advance.

If, as alleged, he emailed her at 10:50pm the night before he went to press -- and then said "she could not be reached for comment" and/or "she did not respond" -- he was being either lazy or disingenuous in that regard.

Her Twitter comments make her sound petty, but at least one of her complaints seems legitimate. She felt that she got railroaded here.

Welcome to pageview journalism. There is no etiquette, accuracy doesn't matter. Pageviews do.

In the past if you published crap you lost the high quality advertisers. Now advertisers just go where the audience is, like the Huffington Post and Business Insider. In other words, all journalists are gossip columnists now. Even better if they wrote for free.

There's certainly been a trend towards optimizing for pageviews and clickbait above all other considerations. That trend has had a horrendous effect on the average quality of journalism in this country, by dint of the brutal economics of pageview advertising. (In recent years, focus has shifted away from pageviews and toward shares, engagement, etc. But it's mostly the same shit, different day: pay writers as little as possible, crank out heavy volume, bait people with headlines, weave vanity metrics into ad dollars.)

But I see a bright spot in all of this. In a sea of crap, good content might glimmer on the surface, wherever it appears. There's been a serious backlash among the tech and journalism communities against content farms and clickbait. People are, once again, experimenting with quality. Whether quality will be able to last depends on whether anyone can figure out how to make money from quality, and that's the unfortunate truth of the matter. Meanwhile, content farming is a gravity well that seems to suck every new publication down into oblivion, slowly but inevitably. A tweak here, an optimization there, a formula plied and followed, and before you know it, you're writing emotionally manipulative headlines and minimizing costs (and quality), like everyone else. But wow, look at those shares and pageviews! :)

I guess I still have hope. Otherwise I wouldn't be involved in journalism right now. For my part: I don't trade in gossip. I don't write clickbait (though typically, and depending on the publication, I don't have editorial control over my headlines or promotional copy). I try to be interesting. I try to be thoughtful. I try to have standards. I have yet to make a serious living as a writer, and until that changes, writing will remain a part-time gig. But I'm an optimist.

I suspect that whoever figures out how to monetize quality writing will do it by reaching back to first principles, rethinking the idea of publishing altogether. Trying to prop up a digital business on the scaffolding of a centuries-old business model makes no sense.

Well considering that she really has no problem sidestepping the generally accepted etiquette and ethics of journalism when it suits her, I think that was exactly the way Forbes should have handled it.