Problem is, you could report the most well-sourced, well-worded article and some portion of the readership would only glean a few details, wrapped up in the con

Problem is, you could report the most well-sourced, well-worded article and some portion of the readership would only glean a few details, wrapped up in the context of their own understanding or existing outlook, and then repeated through their own interpretation. There's really nothing to be done to prevent this except to note how important it is to consider all of the associated information, and present its context. You'll never control how the information is processed by each receiving party, and nor should you. It's good to have this information—it's good to let people know that there is always the potential for something similar, or worse, to arise. Similar to knowing your entire house might be wiped out [by a major storm] someday if you move to Florida—which wouldn't surprise anyone anymore. Repeated dispersal of the information will help prevent rampant hysteria... once a semblance of understanding and context is normalized.