I read Forbes more than I would like to because they often cover topics of interest for me, namely regarding the stock market.
But they provide factually false information and as "investing experts" they know that they're providing false information.
For instance, they constatly trash Roth IRAs versus traditional IRAs because "paying taxes beforehand will make you earn less compared to someone whom only pay taxes afterwards whom have a big headstart". It may be counter intuitive but it's entirely false. Let me prove it to you. Let's say taxes are 15%, you invest $1000 and will double your gain over time.
By paying taxes beforehand, you only invest $850 after taxes, which will double, so that's $1700.
If you pay taxes later, you invest $1000 and it doubles afterwards so that's $2000. Now you take off 15% taxes so that's $300 off, leaving you $1700.
As you can see with this example, Forbes tends to push false narratives that can be mathematically proven false. Is there a conflict of interest, is content sponsored to push a narrative, are the journalists letting their own beliefs take over what's actually true? I don't know but don't trust what they say.