The accurate, but boring headline is almost always, "stock (tumble|gain) as algorithmic traders reinforce trend. Further news may occur."
I think I originally read that this happens in a book somewhere, then observed and noticed yeah that seems to be the norm. Not surprised it seems to be same thing in these adjacent metric % headlines where there's no proper thought if there exists a causal link between X and Y.
I think my brain has learned to recognize the pattern "Something rises X% as Thing Happened" and it reminds me of that cheeky quote about how every headline that is in the form of a question is, ... uh I forgot the full quote. But feels like almost this could have some kind of cheeky rule of its own, about how no causal link ever exists in a headline like this.
Black Swan by Nassim Taleb?
That book however you mentioned, I just looked it up and it seems interesting. Might put on my read list.
They use wording -- just like this article does -- like "X happens as Y also happens".
The keyword being "as" and not "because" or "due to".
It implies causality, by coupling both in the same title, without technically linking the two.
E.g. "Stocks fall as rate increase looms"
They're basically just saying two things happened at the same time, or one after the other, but one didn't necessarily cause the other.
IOW, they know they can't link the two -- i.e. they can't user words like "because" or "due to" -- but they also know that by coupling them in the same headline, readers will still infer causality.
“President announces crackdown on immigration amid ongoing success of Taylor Swift’s new album”.
“My God, you’ve actually seen people looting, raping and eating each other?”
“No, we haven’t actually seen it Tom, we’re just reporting it.”