Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: Hey, factually.co, you write an entire article referencing “5 questions”, then you never detail the 5 questions. What gives?
Executive Summary
The claim that an article promised “5 questions” but failed to detail them is partly correct in some cases and incorrect in others: some articles explicitly list or address five questions, while others use the phrase rhetorically or as a framing device without enumerating discrete questions. This pattern reflects varied editorial practices and the broader challenges of accountability in journalism and misinformation correction, where headlines and ledes sometimes overpromise specifics that the body does not deliver [1] [2] [3].
1. Why readers see “5 questions” but sometimes get less — the editorial gap that causes confusion
Readers encounter headlines promising a specific list like “5 questions” because that structure is a recognizable hook; however, editors and writers sometimes address the theme in narrative form rather than as a numbered list, producing a mismatch between expectation and content. Empirical research on media practices shows that presentation choices—headlines, subheads, and framing—often prioritize engagement over strict one-to-one correspondence with article structure, which can lead to readers perceiving omission even when the material addresses the intended topics in aggregate [3] [1]. The research literature on fact-checking and media practices highlights that verification and accountability work is uneven and that readers may reasonably flag apparent structural omissions as a signal to request clarification from publishers [4] [3]. The example set by interviews that explicitly list five questions demonstrates that some outlets do follow through on enumerated formats, while others treat numbered frameworks as rhetorical scaffolding rather than literal checklists [1] [2].
2. Concrete evidence: cases where “5 questions” were indeed detailed and where they were not
A specific instance shows that an interview piece did lay out five explicit questions to Setti Warren, covering local news’ role, accountability, and solutions like community funding; that piece clearly matched headline promise and offers a template for best practice [1]. By contrast, a different weekly-news item published in October 2025 used “5 Things” or a quiz format that included several questions across topics but did not present a discrete, labeled set of “5 questions” tied to one subject, creating potential reader confusion about promise versus execution [2]. These contrasting examples demonstrate that the claim about “5 questions” being omitted is not universally true; it depends on the article’s genre and editorial choices [1] [2]. Researchers studying media accountability note this heterogeneity and warn readers to inspect whether enumerated promises are literal lists or framing devices [3].
3. Why this matters: accountability, trust, and the research on correction and misinformation
The discrepancy between headline promise and article detail matters for trust and accountability because readers rely on clear signals to evaluate whether reporting fulfilled its stated goals. Studies of debunking and media literacy show that clarity and transparency in structure and sourcing improve comprehension and reduce susceptibility to misinformation, while ambiguous or misleading framings undermine corrective efforts [4] [5]. Fact-checker evaluations also find that methodological transparency—including clear presentation of questions, criteria, and evidence—strengthens credibility; when an outlet advertises a set of questions but does not present them, that gap functions like a transparency deficit and invites scrutiny [3]. This is why some researchers recommend that outlets adopt explicit templates when using enumerated structures so readers can easily verify that promised elements are present [4] [3].
4. How to evaluate whether an article actually omitted the promised “5 questions”
To assess the claim in any specific instance, examine the article for explicit numbered headings, question-format subheads, or a clear mapping between the headline’s five topics and discrete sections in the body. If the piece addresses the themes without enumerating them, note whether each theme is given a distinct subsection and whether readers could reasonably reconstruct five distinct questions from the content [6] [1]. When ambiguity remains, check for companion materials—sidebars, linked Q&As, or related posts—that may contain the enumerated questions the headline implied; some outlets rely on multi-format presentation where the main article is narrative and a sidebar supplies the checklist [1] [2]. Researchers emphasize that determining omission requires looking beyond the headline to the article’s structure, metadata, and linked resources [3].
5. What publishers and readers can do next to reduce this friction
Publishers should adopt clearer signals: use numbered headers when promising lists, provide explicit subsections for each promised question, and link to supplementary Q&A material when the article’s narrative approach is preferred. Research on journalistic accountability recommends protocolized presentation when headlines promise a specific number of items, because this reduces reader confusion and strengthens trust [3] [4]. Readers confronting a perceived omission should flag the article to the outlet, ask for clarification, and consult related posts or the journalist’s social channels where the list may exist; documented examples show that direct queries often prompt editors to update headlines or add clarifying subheads [1] [2]. These steps align editorial incentives with audience expectations and address the structural cause of the “5 questions” complaint.