I don’t understand this critique. The editorial headline “Why Does Trump Want an Inaccurate Census?” is perfectly fine.
The phrasing as a question does not mean they expect you to answer it for them. It does not mean they consider it to be an “esoteric, unsolvable riddle” or a “profound mystery”. They know the answer, they provide the answer, and anybody who reads the editorial knows the answer too:
Mr. Trump’s effort to stop the census count early in the middle of a pandemic is of a piece with this campaign of exclusion. The people who are most likely to be uncounted — those from marginalized, poor or otherwise hard-to-reach communities — are those whom the president considers undeserving of equal treatment.
Maybe the question mark is click-bait, but it seems more like an invitation. People who already know the answer (e.g., you and me) don’t really need to read it, although we probably should anyway. But there are plenty of Times readers who don’t know the answer or could use a refresher. Or even worse, are unaware of Trump’s efforts to sabotage the census. Those readers will click on the headline and get their questions answered. This is a good outcome.
You seem to be interpreting the question mark as “we don’t know the answer and maybe you can help us figure it out” instead of “we do know the answer and we’ll share it with you if you click here”.
Question marks in general, especially for opinion pieces, are fine. Obviously the FoxNews style of question mark headline is not fine. This is a yes/no question about some inflammatory nonsense, the answer to which is invariably “no”. (Today’s example: “Halloween, ‘Happy Birthday’ canceled by COVID?”)
But just looking at the Times front page I see several other questions. Some are about the future and are going to be necessarily speculative: “Will This Be a Lost Year for America’s Children”, “Will Trump Win Pennsylvania Again?”
Here are some others:
Is Staying Home Harming Your Child’s Immune System?
For decades, companies put profits above all else. Is that changing?
How Old Is This Ancient Vision of the Stars?
I haven’t read these articles, but I suppose it could be argued that if the answer is known they should put it in the headline. On the other hand, there are some cases where both-sidesing is the correct approach. Sometimes experts disagree and exploring those disagreements fairly is the best we can do.
Finally, looking at other recent editorials, I found this one:
Why Does the N.Y.P.D. Want to Punish Journalists?
This one is framed exactly the same as today’s census editorial. It takes as a given some phenomenon (Trump wants an inaccurate census, NYPD wants to punish journalists) and asks why. I just don’t see why anybody’s reaction to this headline would be “Why are they asking me?”