So yes, agreed, his connecting of dots come across poorly but it didn't stop him from gathering 38k views.
From what I've seen, articles on forbes.com are mostly low-quality - often blogspam or tabloid-style journalism. They seem to have a good reputation in society which isn't represented by their articles.
I would be a happier living in a filter bubble with "forbes.com" removed from my life.
http://jimromenesko.com/2012/02/21/nyt-reporter-defends-forb...
In general (though, agreed, ~off-topic here), more can be done w/r/t quality assurance of a distributed content network. Something like "report blogspam" is highly subjective and rife with abuse potential. Slashdot's moderation / meta moderation, in combination with straight up and down votes by the wider community, can be effective. Relying on a "central editorial functions" to handle it all is inefficient and doesn't scale well.
This - reputation, rewards, quality (of writers, content, community) - has been an area of interest for me for years. I'm actively working on same currently. I'll put an Ask HN together and see if it gets any traction.
(Disclaimer: I work at Forbes and speak here only for myself)