As a (now retired) journalist, one of the things that continues to frustrate me about many news stories is that they contain undefined comparisons. By that I mean that the story says something like X is up (or down) Z per cent. Okay, but compared to exactly what?

It would appear to me that the basic part of reporting any trend or comparison has to be exactly defining what base you are comparing to. But, often that's completely missing from the story -- possibly because the reporter assumes that everyone knows what the basis of comparison is.

Of course, there are also comparisons that are much too simplistic, such as stating rail project A is 27 per cent more expensive per mile than project B. Okay, but maybe there's a reason for that, including that the infrastructure in one case is built for higher speeds, heavier tonnage, or involves more bridges and tunnels.

Yes, I think most reporters make a decent effort at reporting, but often it ends up much too superficial.

-- Ernest (who spent much of his reporting life focusing on transportation and travel, but also covered many other subjects)