Media Mashing

I had to laugh when I read reporter Thomas B. Rosenstiel’s defense of the media, “Blaming the Messengers--Again” (Nov. 27).

Where was he during Iran-gate, Hart-gate, Quayle-gate or any of the other media “Gong Shows”?

The fact is that too often judgment is the name of the game, not reporting. “A Cry in the Dark” exposes the sick relationship between the media and its judgment-hungry audience.

Rosenstiel claimed that the film lets the public off too easy, blaming the media for everything. This is not true. Gossip, like prostitution, requires two guilty parties, and “A Cry in the Dark” deals with both clearly and forcefully.

There are many scenes that show the Australian public eagerly involving itself with the shocking story of a woman who may have killed her own baby and blamed the death on a wild dog. We watch the people become judge and jury before there is real evidence of wrongdoing.

You can call it “trial by media” or just rumor-mongering, but we all know it when we see it. Whether it’s Dan Quayle stories during the Republican convention or reports on Michael Dukakis’ alleged emotional problems, the result is the same--judgment based on half-truths or pure falsehood.

Rosenstiel’s own article belies his defense of the media’s treatment of the Australian couple. He said, “Also missing from the film is that the Chamberlains in the first few days after their daughter’s disappearance apparently tried to make money off the tragedy by selling family photos to the press.” Scandalous!

But the operative word here is apparently . And what if they did try to get money? Can we judge their motives? Perhaps they intended to spend it on getting the word out about the dangers of the wild dingos. . . .

We don’t know and apparently neither does Rosenstiel. We are all better served if we can just get the facts; when it comes to the media’s coverage of events, we need less heat and more light.

ROBERT JUST

Los Angeles