This is silly. Reading the original paper (which is behind four links and then a registration-wall):
"Egypt’s bond yields are
consistently around
15% while Thailand’s
is 2.5%, thus resulting
in significantly higher
repayment costs. At the
same time, according to the
sentiment model derived,
66% of Egypt’s news
articles in global media
were negative, compared
with 32% of Thailand’s.
More positive coverage
in the media would result
in proportionately lower
bond yields."
This doesn't even try to establish causality (the words "causality" and "causation" aren't in the paper). It jumps directly from correlation to causation. There are obvious causal paths that don't flow through media coverage - eg., if X% of people worldwide are just anti-Africa racists, that would cause both negative media sentiment and worse borrowing opportunities, without the first necessarily causing the second.
"Egypt’s bond yields are consistently around 15% while Thailand’s is 2.5%, thus resulting in significantly higher repayment costs. At the same time, according to the sentiment model derived, 66% of Egypt’s news articles in global media were negative, compared with 32% of Thailand’s. More positive coverage in the media would result in proportionately lower bond yields."
This doesn't even try to establish causality (the words "causality" and "causation" aren't in the paper). It jumps directly from correlation to causation. There are obvious causal paths that don't flow through media coverage - eg., if X% of people worldwide are just anti-Africa racists, that would cause both negative media sentiment and worse borrowing opportunities, without the first necessarily causing the second.