How predictable. I'm referring to the purpose of the publication grouping stats together in a story. Saying "causation and coincidence" is to say nothing. There is never a clear direct "causation" in financial price movements, and both the readers and the publication are aware of this, but that does not mean there is not an implicit narrative. Financial news publications don't mention random coincidental stats just for the amusing random coincidence. The language will always be ambiguous, but pairing specific stats with price moves in ambiguous language is still effectually to create an implicit narrative.
>and both the readers and the publication are aware of this
Publications wouldn't bother if they thought that readers could discern that this was what they were doing. As you say, the point is to create an implicit narrative; it's a narrative of causation where only coincidence actually can be proven, and often where the actual cause of price movement is heavily obfuscated (partly by the assured connection-building that the publications engage in).
