Hi Trevor1 - It seems to me that you don't know what your point is in this post and your various responses. And you are casting various aspersions in this last post without backing those up either. Shrug emoji.

Most of this looks like motivated reasoning. You're trying to reinvent the wheel, and you're falling into the usual pitfalls that have trapped people smarter and better people than either of us.

Huh? You are just using words here without any meaning associated with them. I listed a bunch of article that are recession alarmist to counter your assertion that the wsj is trying to trick me into thinking no recession is coming. I simply searched "recession" for the last 2 days and noted the article titles. Almost none were denialist. I'm not inventing anything, just pointing to some countervailing evidence. Where is the trap and where is the motivated thinking?  I just think your argument is incoherent and overconfidently hand-wavy. 

One of the less-well-known strategies is to put the dishonest article on the front page (which millions of people see) and then putting honest articles elsewhere that only a few thousand will see.

Huh? Now this is a taxonomy of how news orgs trick us? Front "page" of today's wsj is recession alarmism not denialism. Front page of yesterday's was alarmism not denialism. And the thing is, even the article you highlighted is not wrong - read the subtitle. It says, roughly: big bad stuff has been happening and now a little good stuff happened. It may not be helpful to you but it isn't evidence of a plot. And it also says nothing at all about a recession! It is non-sequitur to your recession premise. And it is orthogonal to your -large news corporations are lying to us on purpose- premise. 

There isn't a long inferential distance problem here. I simply disagree with your premise(s) and think you have not met any reasonable bar of related (non cherry picked) evidence. I thought I was providing counter-evidence but you counter that I'm just missing some deep wisdom. Meh. Also not convincing. 

Listen - news sources are wrong! I don't counter that. But it is kind of neither here nor there in your post. 

In a group with only economists, the image alone would suffice.

I mean, suffice for what? All these economists would agree with your premise that we "clearly been heading towards a recession for months"? No they wouldn't. Nor would they likely agree with (what I perceive is) your other assertion that "large news corporations" have an organized agenda to lie to the ignorant masses. I mean, besides fox news, obvi. 

I think your group of only economists would tell you that there are many strange signals in the noise this time - as there are every time. They would point to the strength in various productivity trends and general strength (at least in the US) of household balance sheets as two countervailing points to counter the many negative signals. Lots of arguments as well regarding the relative influence of demand vs supply constraints as drivers of inflation, along with how much impact the russia / ukraine situation is having on inflation. These arguments play out in my info diet on econ twitter, econ blogs like econlib, a bunch of substacks and yes, news sources like wsj. These are (as I perceive them) pretty honest attempts to ferret out the truth. Sure, everyone has an agenda and an ax to grind. But, no, the fix is not in. 

I am spitballing here but I suspect you are concerned that other people aren't concerned enough about a pending recession and you simply used a silly piece of evidence as support. No harm no foul. Go forth and make that argument with evidence! But don't dig a deeper hole here. These are not the droids you are looking for. Alternatively, maybe you are a conspiracist and believe there is an organized plot to [something that isn't clear]. Every source makes editorial decisions about what NOT to cover and the slant for what they do cover. And these decisions accumulate into an agenda, without a doubt. But that isn't the point you seem to be making. I dunno. Maybe you have a point - if so make it!

Lastly - you misread my last line almost comically. I certainly think it is possible and even likely for many to be be misled and/ or exploited by institutions (corporations, states, "teams" like political parties, etc.) I simply think it is a losing strategy to be paranoid and knee-jerk contrarian. It makes one sound like a crank, that can't have fun at parties and who is likely to miss out on compounding interest because "they're all crooks." This is contra your straw man version last paragraph in the initial post. 

“Many a good argument is ruined by some fool who knows what he is talking about.”
― Marshall McLuhan

P.S. I might be done here - time to get back to real life. But if you are tempted to respond, I challenge you to specifics! Make a specific point, object to a specific statement whatever. But don't wave your hands around using metaphors and unsupported assertions. 

Then why not choose the 5 year window?

News corporations provably have an imperative to reduce panic during a recession, although I don't know the specifics of where the momentum for this comes from.

Do they, provably? Or, to put it differently: Is having an imperative to reduce panic the only plausible explanation for headlines like this? 

My primary model of news organizations' goals is that they are trying to maximize attention, ideally (but not always) without being factually wrong. I think the WSJ headline is compatible with those goals.

For me the reporting about daily fluctuations in the financial press is mostly a source for amusement, not to be taking seriously (on 99% of the days, of course).