I've been reading some critisizm of the news coverage, what do you folks think?

I think some of the wall to wall coverage had to interfere with the investigation.  It looks like the big losers are the "profilers".  I'm not sure if that's fair, either.  Profilers have to have all the information available, and I'm sure the talking head profilers were working with severely restricted facts.  

The only media exposure I had was radio (mainly NPR) and doing a search on "sniper" on Yahoo and Google.  I watch a thimbleful of television, so I'm not talking from direct experience.

If you stuck to NPR than you were kept pretty immune from the crap that was produced.  NPR is amazing how it recogizes that there is still news in the rest of the world when the commercial networks only report on the "sexy" stuff.

What amazed me the most was the 'leaks" coming from people involved in the investigation, c'mon folks, take your jobs serously!

Only slightly second in my amazement is the vast amount on inefective "experts" that were dragged up to report their take on the killings.  One thing that I have learned in my lifetime is that when I don't know, I let people have the truth, because if not than most likely am completely wrong.  

but.... there were people at work who watched the coverage hour after hour.  Before we totally slam the media, we've got to keep in mind that they're selling a product.  And if the product is "sniper coverage", and people are tuning in, we can't just blame them.  

I like the way C-SPAN does it:  turn on the cameras and just cover the action, gavel to gavel.  I prefer that to an "expert" coming on and telling me what this or that means.  

And I confess to indulgiing myself in their product.  I would go from fox to msnbc to cnn until my wife would start to whine.