The BBC examines why the U.S. media is so ga-ga about one missing teen who went to the Caribbean island of Aruba on a holiday.
Some excerpts:
Mark Feldstein, associate professor of Media and Public Affairs at George Washington University, told the BBC: "Of course there has been too much coverage, by my standards, but this is what we have come to expect."
Once the story has touched the public imagination you can't row back on covering it until the mystery is solved
Danna Walker
Journalist, CBS NewsMr Feldstein, a former investigative reporter, compared the case to the story earlier this year of the woman who faked her abduction before her wedding, becoming known around the world as the "Runaway Bride".
"These are really not national stories but they get national attention," he said.
"Much of it has to do with the rise of cable networks that have to fill 24/7 schedules, but when such a story reaches a critical mass you find the rest of the media has to cover it."
I posted a link Friday to the Ariana Huffington column on this in Salon.
Huffington's latest column compares the major US news networks' focus on three stories from 1 May to 20 June: Natalee's disappearance, the Michael Jackson trial and the Downing Street Memo.
Huffington says that on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, Fox News and MSNBC combined, there were 56 segments on the memo, 646 on Natalee and 1,490 on Jackson.
'A huge mystery'
The networks argue that they are simply giving the public what they want; a dramatic human interest story that speaks to the fears of parents across America who send their children off on exotic trips to celebrate their graduations.
But it is hard to pin down exactly why one story reaches a critical mass, while other similar incidents barely register.
Danna Walker, a senior journalist with CBS News, told the BBC: "There is criticism that it is only a story because she is a pretty, blonde and white - and it is criticism that journalists are taking to heart and looking elsewhere for other stories.
"But it is a big story because it is an American girl who went off on an adventure, and didn't come back. It is a huge mystery, it is something people can identify with."
This brings me back to something I once said in a job interview (for a gig that ultimately I didn't get) back in the mid-1990s. I was asked what I disliked most about being a journalist.
"The public," I said.
Pushing onward, heedless of the raised eyebrows and other uncomfortable body language of the two interviewers, I argued that most of this junk news would disappear if people would simply stop watching it.
I argued you can only make complex issues so simple, and then the public has to pick up the ball and say collectively, 'we have to know this stuff as citizens' and then work their way through it.
Personally, I think I was right then and hold the same views today.
But I've also heard journalism described as a high-brow form of entertainment.
To me, the core of the journalistic mission is serving the public interest -- which I differentiate from serving up that which interests the public.
If a substantial enough portion of the public only wants to be entertained and not informed, then it will inevitably lead to more nonsense stories like this dominating the U.S. news agenda in the future.
Question to you Canadian news consumers out there: Do you find Canadian news to be a bit better about hyping those types of stories than U.S. outlets?
It's my sense that they are, but I work in the MSM, so my vision might be clouded.