In all fairness, the unusual sells a lot better than the usual as news, so it makes sense that newsmedia goes for the former rather than the latter - any newspaper that reports based on prevalence and ignores the shock-effect of an event simply doesn't get read and goes bankrupt.

So in this specifically, as I see it the problem isn't that the newsmedia choses to report the unusual but that very few people have been taught to beware of one's natural falacy of confusing exposure (how much something is talked about) with actual impact - you can very visibly see it in how people react to governments implementing authoritarian anti-Terrorism measures, were the people who confuse exposure with impact actually support very authoritarian measures to supposedly combat Terrorism whilst the people who do not and instead actual check what's the impact of it tend to be against authoritarian measures because they trade a lot of everybody's Freedom for supposedly combating something which in most countries is has a lower death rate than slipping on a bathtub.

As I see it, were the press fails to uphold Journalistic Integrity is in refraining from reporting on certain unusuals, for example political corruption and certain actions of the ultra-wealthy (whilst choosing to report on other actions of them - see: celebrity culture).

IMHO the dynamic we see in this graphic which is really about impactful vs newsworth is pretty natural, what's not natural is the selectivity in reporting of different but equally newsworthy events.

Having family members die of these things doesn't make people aware heart disease exist? It's only if it's reported in the New York Times reports on it that makes people aware of things?

And no it's not all that flashy when my grandfather dies of a heart attack at the age of 87. That's part of your stats on the common causes of death, right? It's sad for those that knew him, but do you expect a story about an octogenarian dying of a heart attack to make the front page of the NY Times? What would that accomplish more than an obituary stating people should give to a charity in lieu of flowers? Maybe with some more funding to medical research my grandfather could've lived to 88 or 89! But the damn NY Times decided it was more important to report on someone dying in the prime of their life instead of elderly people dying. Those insensitive bastards!