A New York Times dispatch from London about the end of a five-week strike by criminal defense lawyers manages to go on for 18 paragraphs without saying how much money the lawyers make. We read that the government's offer "raises legal aid payments by 15 percent" and "fell short of the lawyers' demand for a 25 percent raise in legal aid fees." We hear that "some lawyers say criminal defense work remains financially tenuous, leading many barristers to quit for more lucrative practices in commercial or family law." But the percents alone aren't much use without numbers about the base.
The Financial Times does a little better, reporting that the barristers "are self-employed and ... can earn as little as £12,200 in their first three years of work."
Is it too much for a reader to ask that newspaper coverage of a pay dispute include information about the average salary, or the full range of compensation, from minimum to maximum, of the employees negotiating for increased pay? Apparently so. It'd be nice to see editors and reporters to press harder to include such information. Without it, it's difficult for a reader to draw informed conclusions.