Or they just know that they have a significant population of readers who think computers and smartphones are unnatural, evil and genetically modified poison, and that they have another significant population of readers who will call them out on the bullshit. Igniting a powderkeg of polarized readers is a great way to drive traffic, and therefore ad money.

Yes, it seems like standard operating procedure for contemporary media.

This sadly can also be true.

> They obviously have agenda.

Could a desire for safe roads be one? Drivers on smartphones kill.

Drivers that are not fit to drive kill. In this case drivers that cannot pay attention to the road. Smartphones have nothing to do with that.

The lure of the smartphone is pushing a number of drivers over the threshold of insufficient attention. They would be less distracted without.

It's not like drivers had an individually fixed amount of distraction that they would distribute on whatever media at hand, it's the attention that is limited and far too many drivers don't allocate it correctly when their phone is around. Unfortunately, using a smartphone while driving is far more common than using the newspaper while driving has ever been. This has everything to do with the difference between smartphones and newspapers.