I do not understand what about the title is linkbait. If you are circulating any sort of file you should announce the presence of malware or remove it.
The way it's worded heavily implies that this was done on purpose to hurt anyone who tries to view this stuff, and that you will get infected if you try to download it.
I'm not sure how you could word it differently. It implies nothing, and the article itself explicitly denies any finger-pointing.
> I ought to be clear from the outset: I have no information linking Wikileaks, Asssange, Hammond, Monsegur, the FBI or anyone else directly with these malicious files. That very well may change quickly as research progresses, but at no point should this post be considered finger pointing. The purpose of this post is not to assign responsibility but to ensure that the journalists and activists downloading these files or who have already downloaded these files understand the consequences and take proper precautions. If I can encourage security researchers to take a look at these files it would be a bonus.
Also answers your question of "why the [arguably] click-bait title?" To get attention, which it deserves.
I think the headline would be much better like, "Wikileaks Global Intelligence File Dump Contains a Great Deal of Malicious Software."
The problem is "loaded" which has two rather different meanings in this context. "X is loaded with Y" can just mean that X contains a lot of Y, but it can also mean that someone loaded a lot of Y into X. If you go for the second meaning, which is an entirely natural reading of the original headline, then the headline is saying "Someone (such as the NSA or their friends) put a lot of malware into this stuff."
As to the "why" question (which for the record was not mine) I don't think it's justifiable to use a misleading headline just because the information is important. Although I imagine the misleading nature of this headline was entirely unintentional.
You leave me wondering if you read my comment, since "it depends on how you parse loaded" is most of what I said, and I explicitly gave the author the benefit of the doubt by saying it was probably unintentional.