One question I always want to ask journalists is to add one more sentence to the article starting with "usually".
This would be to give readers an idea of whether the reported fact is usual, unusual, important or incidental.
Imagine this reported fact (I made it up):
"Chocolate sold in the United States contains 5mg of acid per 100g."
I have no idea whether that is usual, unusual, important or incidental. For all I know 100g of chocolate always contain 5mg of acid, possibly more, possible less. And neither do I know whether it makes a difference or not.
A while ago I read the disturbing news that the suicide rate in the American army has gone up dramatically since the invasion of Iraq.
Then I found out that the suicide rate of the army is still way below the suicide rate of civilian Americans.
I never found it if the suicide rate among civilians went up or down in the same time period or whether the suicide rate fluctuates with generations regardless of current events or not.
Perhaps there should be law requiring journalists, who are free to say whatever they want, to add such relevant facts to everything they write, just like producers of random products, who can sell whatever they want, have to tell customers about the facts relevant to the item.
And if journalists disagree, we should make it law that they have to shop in stores that sell food without expiry dates. It's only fair if important information is missing while somebody enjoys his freedom, right?
