Missing the Forest for the Trees

The BBC reports on a recent study indicating that natural contraception, a.k.a. the rhythm method, is as effective as other contraceptives in preventing pregnancies when used correctly. It's articles like this that make me feel like I don't understand journalism at all. These types of stories deserve some analysis, some critical thinking, some consideration of the larger issues at stake. To report that the rhythm method is an effective method of contraception is to fuel a huge international debate that touches on everything from education to religion. How can a news service not include a discussion of how this type of study might affect that debate? Isn't that the whole point of reporting on the study in the first place, to affect the debate?