"Is media coverage of the 'race-based' attacks on University of Virginia students sensational? Some of it, yes. Should the media have ignored the racial component of the attacks, as some critics suggest? Absolutely not. The very controversy now raging proves that issues of race remain a huge, unsettled component of our social and political environment, as does the fact that public policy reflects the apparent need to address it through such vehicles as hate-crimes laws.

We have not yet reached the point where race is neutral in public policy or social interaction where, as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once hoped, it is the content of a man's character that distinguishes him, not the color of his skin. This is distressing, but all too real.

Reporting on issues of public and social concern is what the media do, and rightly so. It is how members of a community learn what others are thinking and feeling, what troubles exist to be solved and how people can perhaps unite to solve them. Sometimes it takes controversy to spur change.

The alternative is a cold, repressed society, where citizens are afraid to express what they think and feel. If you think sensationalism is hard to live with, try the fear, suspicion and isolation that thrive in non-democratic societies where no free press exists.

It must be added, however, that some of the coverage has indeed been sensationalist. There is a contingent among the media that thrives on titillation rather than on responsible reporting. These media pander to extreme views, on one side of an issue or the other, without even an attempt at balance.

They succeed because they find a ready audience among people who also prefer radicalism over balance and who do not - or, perhaps because of untrained thinking skills, cannot - reason through complicated issues to a fair and balanced conclusion.

And racial issues are extremely complex. Few other contemporary problems demand such a high level of both rationality and compassionate sensitivity. Police and responsible media have tried to achieve this careful balance by characterizing the attacks in very specific language as race-based. But many hearers have leaped to the conclusion that they are hate crimes. Some people jump to the conclusion that the suspects cannot be guilty; others, that they must be guilty.

Critically, and unfortunately, sensationalism can overwhelm honest, responsible debate, driving it off the scene just when it is most needed. And those who find themselves unnervingly in the eye of the whirlwind can decide simply to hunker down and never say another word, depriving the community of important input for that debate.

In this case, a similar problem may result for Charlottesville police. It was they who first reported the suspects' own words, that victims were targeted because they looked white. This is a crucial fact, appropriately relayed by the media. But if police, now burned, choose to give fewer details in future cases, the public may be denied important information. Already, city police have been criticized for not warning the public about attacks that were carried on over a period of four months. Some city residents naturally heard about the attacks, but had no way of knowing whether they were in danger or not.

Operating in. an open society involves risk, including the risk that one's words will be misused. That is why it is essential to carefully weigh words, and the thoughts and feelings that prompt them or are prompted by them.

Sensationalism in a volatile situation like this one also endangers a civilized society. But even so, free speech is worth the risk." (Editorial, The Daily Progress, February 22, 2002)