Are we out of touch? Or are others in the media?

Sometimes, the swirl moves so fast that we can't help but stop for a second and ask, "Are we out of touch? Or are they?"

That's how it was in 1996 when a bomb went off at the Olympics in Atlanta, killing one and injuring more than 100. Soon after, the FBI and virtually every newspaper and broadcast news organization fell over themselves to finger security guard Richard Jewell as the suspect.

As always is the case, there was a delicious theory based on circumstantial evidence.

A security guard at the park, Jewell had noticed a suspicious package that contained the bomb and began clearing people away moments before it went off. That life-saving act became the center of a theory that he was a wannabe cop who had planted the bomb to get himself noticed.

We were virtually alone on the journalism landscape in refusing to name him as a suspect.

We did so because of a lesson seared into us three years earlier in covering the Brown's chicken murders in Palatine. Police had a quick suspect in that case as well; they were convinced they had "the guy" and the circumstantial evidence was compelling. Under the crush of deadline, we identified the suspect by name.

And then, he never was charged. Ultimately, he was exonerated.

Trying to learn from that, we crafted a policy that says this: "We do not identify crime suspects unless we know they are about to be charged or there is some other compelling reason to do so."

So when the Jewell case arose in 1996, we simply followed that policy. This was no great heroism on our part. At the time we decided to withhold his name, we didn't realize we would be alone. We assumed most other newspapers would do the same.

Jewell, who died of cancer at age 44 earlier this year, eventually was exonerated. But only after press and camera crews camped outside his apartment for weeks, watching his every move.

"I am not the Olympic Park bomber," Jewell said after his name was cleared. "I am a man who has lived 88 days afraid of being arrested for a crime I did not commit."

News media organizations said they learned a valuable lesson from the Richard Jewell tragedy. In the future, they would show restraint in identifying crime suspects.

That restraint, unfortunately, turned out to be wishful thinking. We live in an age of CourtTV, and MSNBC excess and Fox News hyperbole, and they all seem to take every other news organization down the same irresponsible path.

If Patsy Ramsey were still alive, you could ask her. She died of cancer a year ago at age 49, never knowing complete exoneration from the media bombardment that along with police suggested for 10 years that she had a hand in the murder of her 6-year-old daughter.

You know the girl's name. It was on the news. JonBenet Ramsey. For 10 years, you couldn't escape the stories about her slaying in Boulder, Colo. Instead of grieving with the Ramseys, the nation spent a decade accusing them.

We get correspondence from time to time about Drew Peterson, asking, "Why aren't you giving more coverage to this sensational story?"

And yes, it has a delicious theory. Yes, the police have a hand in the speculating.

Don't misunderstand. It's possible Drew Peterson did something awful. But it's also possible he did nothing wrong at all. The thing is, we don't know; no news outlet does.

And we don't print what we don't know.

We don't identify crime suspects unless we know they are about to be charged, and there's no suggestion that Peterson is about to be charged with anything. Or that he ever will be.

But look around at all the news media - locally and across the country -- and goodness sakes, they're all over this thing. Every scandalous word and shred of gossip.

Which makes us ask.

"Are we out of touch? Or are they?"