In a time of racial divide in this country, I wonder, does an article like the one published yesterday ("Find Dru, why not Cindy," Dec. 11) help bring attention to the subject in a positive or negative way? I personally don't believe guilt tactics get anyone's agenda very far, and yet, by insinuating a generalized racial prejudice based on a comparison that is hardly apples to apples, I feel that was exactly the effort made.

Look at the details of the cases referenced and you'll see the difference. Elizabeth Smart was taken from her own house in the middle of the night with her sister as a witness. Dru Sjodin was, presumably, taken at knifepoint while on the phone with her boyfriend. Additionally, circumstantial evidence indicates a significant crime has been committed in her case. While I personally don't recall anything about the Laci Peterson case until the two bodies washed up, that fact alone is rather spectacular and cause for media attention.

Instead of national media racial bias, I believe the focus on these three cases is due to the national media's search for sensationalism. As far as I'm aware, all that is known about Cindy's case is that she's missing. There are no witnesses and no evidence of a second party. The unfortunate truth is that the media is not a public service. Sensationalism is what sells and when more than 800,000 missing person reports are submitted each year, Song's case has very little
to garner the media spotlight. Yesterday's article had the potential to align people to the cause or alienate them from it.

Based on the poor connections in the article, what kind of effect do you think unfounded accusations of prejudice will have?

Perhaps there is bias in the media, but without better examples, all yesterday's article did was make me believe it may not be the kind that was being reported.