Missing pretty girl syndrome. False consensus effect. Big phrases, big deal, huh? What do they mean? Well they're relative because when this office actually watches Fox News beginning at 8pm and sees every show with some Natalee Holloway interviews which ask the same questions with the same answers over and over, something most definitely is wrong. A full half of Bill O'Reilly's show, Hannity & Colmes, along with Greta's full hour (with an obligatory nod to Katrina) was dominated by Aruba. The 8-9pm hour can be painful for us, as you know; normally enduring Bill O'Reilly for 10 minutes makes us want to commit hari-kari with a chopstick.
"Missing pretty girl syndrome" was a term coined we believe by blogger Michelle Malkin first, followed by similiar phrases by NPR's Gwen Ifill and other print media critics (Washington Post, NY Times etc) to describe the media's sensationalized coverage of young, attractive, missing white women to the exclusion of other missing people regardless of race or gender.
The same term can be applied to the focus of some blogs. Blogs themselves are personal opinions of the owners; if a blogger wants to blog the focus path of a specific missing pretty white girl, then so be it. However, we believe this fosters the same syndrome some cable news networks are afflicted by, and literally ignores the thousands of others who are missing. Since we've seen blogging affect media and even what they cover, it's safe to say the two are somewhat related.
There is a pattern to anything as focused and limiting as this syndrome, at least from the stages of a news cycle. It begins by the breaking news, where the interviews with families, spokespeople, experts, and authorities are asked about their initial experiences and other information about the missing person. Closely following this is the public perception phase, where the interviews are "ramped up" by reporters and hosts and the questions are increasingly more intimate and accusatory. Sometimes these questions are specifically directed to the victim's actions/character, the family, and/or authorities as contradictory and imflammatory; the resulting responses lead public impressions and perceptions of "fact" falsification (victim, family, friends) and incompetent investigative activities (authorities). Sound familiar? We knew ya'll were smart.
As time goes on, the resulting coverage, such as Fox News and victim-specific bloggers at the moment, enters a stage of media hype and sensationalism, the latter of which often ignores the facts and focuses on invoking emotion for viewership and in the case of blogs, readership and donation. Questions like "what do you think" or "how do you feel" are typical of the type of inquiries by a journalist or host that cause the person being interviewed to speculate or emote when answering. Perhaps an example of this is the recent re-arrest of the Kalpoe brothers and their friend: it's not clear on any of the posted articles at MSM sites if the charge *truly* is for the Alabama teen, and tv coverage on cable causes the view to associate the charges without even thinking about it simply by the questions being asked and responded to. On the surface, one would tie the arrest to the current case, however reading the release from Aruba, that's not explicit.
At this point, false consensus effect usually presents itself in some segments of the viewing/reading public. False consensus effect is defined as the perception people have that their opinions, beliefs, theories, and perceived facts are representative of the public at large. Put it this way: if one is in a group where everyone thinks or acts about a topic in the same manner, one might feel the collective opinion is indicative of a larger population outside one's group, when in fact it isn't.
Eventually, the coverage tapers due to other more important stories, the police find the missing person, or both. The problem here is that along the way, the false consensus effect by the public can result in trial by media. Currently, this is the case in the Natalee Holloway story - while her parents are rightly outraged at Aruban authorities, we can't count how many times they have been on TV stating that *they* have very little facts. This automatically leads to theories of cover-up, fabrication, and secrecy; in Aruba's case, they operate under Dutch law and are bound by it's contraints in releasing information. That's fact, no matter what the public affected by the Aruba case feels. Everything else is gosssip and speculation, until confirmed or released by authorities. Mark our words: rampant speculation feeds the fuel of misperception and can result in problems gathering evidence towards prosecuting a suspect, or even result in the perpetrator(s) release.
Recently CNN's president took a shot at Fox News for the tabloid coverage they've been producing lately, and Fox shot back with one thing - the ratings CNN has lost. All the blogging Greta did recently about "helping" missing person's families, while probably well- intentioned, is not necessarily the fair and balanced story Fox News as a whole professes to report. Remember the news cycle as you watch these cases (or any topic really) develop in the media - and you decide.