Follow up on media speculations

WashPost: Almost everything sniper pundits told media was wrong. So much for the so-called experts. Paul Farhi and Linton Weeks write: "The important question is, was the orgy of speculation harmless -- or was there a very dangerous undercurrent to it? By saturating the public's consciousness with phantom images of thirtyish white men, did the media profilers distract attention from a more general and possibly open-minded search for the perpetrators?" A CNN senior veep says: "We have no regrets. . . . I think we were very responsible." (Washington Post)

• Kurtz: Unreleased info aired on TV news helped crack case (WashPost)


• CNN confirms it considered using "C.S.I." actors as pundits (NYT/r.r.)


• No TV pundit got even the broadest outlines of the story right (Newsday)


• Rosenberg praises CNN reporter Arena for saying, "I don't know" (LAT/r.r.)


• Rosenstiel: Washington media were "responsible, restrained" (WashTimes)


• Powers: Bare-bones wire stories epitomize new world of news (NatJournal) 


• Journalism prof says media were aiding, abetting sniper (MSNBC.com)

Several excellent articles on the abundence - and incorrectness - of much of the profiling done on TV during the sniper chase.  From Jim Romenesko's MediaNews