I wish there were an aggressively anti-clickbait news outlet that writes headlines explicitly designed to preempt and neutralize potential misunderstandings. Imagine editors try to anticipate all kinds of ways a candidate headline might mislead the reader, and rewrite the headline to discourage those inferences — succinctly if possible, verbosely if necessary. For this particular piece such a outlet might opt for something like:

"Ex-Boeing Employee Who Reported Safety Issues in 2019 at South Carolina Facility Dies by Apparent Suicide"

or even:

"Ex-Boeing Employee Who Reported Safety Issues in 2019 at South Carolina Facility — Distinct from the 737 Max Whistleblower! — Dies by Apparent Suicide"

To be clear, I don't find the headline by The Hill ("Key Boeing Whistleblower Found Dead from Apparent Suicide") to be especially misleading or clickbaity. It's perfectly defensible against charges of intentional misleadingness. But I suspect for many readers it is part of the experience of reading this article to have a moment of realization halfway through to the effect of "Ah, so this is not about the 737 Max whistleblower I've recently read about". What a breath of fresh air it'd be to have a news outlet that immediately gives off an impression of honorableness by trying actively and aggressively to avoid misleading its reader by its headlines (rather than focus on how its headlines can be defended from charges of misleadingness)!