Anyone remember the D.C. sniper coverage last October? It was when reporting went 'round the clock' about how life as we know it in America was over because people were being terrorized by some psychotic sniper. I only realized how over the top the coverage was when CNN hired some graphics artist to make an animated emblem for their coverage. Although the connection might not seem obvious, I've come to realize that any unnecessary graphics used to complement the story is a very good indication that someone thinks the story is of paramount importance. In essence, the more needless background images that are employed with the story, the more the media outlets plan on jamming the same six facts down your throat-whether you care or not. But seriously, do you remember how the snipers dominated American life? Schools were closed; newspapers ran banner headlines; people were genuinely freaking out.

Maybe these are more cynical times than the innocent fall of 2002, but while in October we were concerned with a sniper in D.C., today there is a much greater threat to American homeland security and it's not getting any coverage (no, it's not Uday Hussein). Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-affectionately known as SARS-is a big deal and only in the last two days has it made its way up from the "stock ticker" line on CNN, the "other news" section of CNN.com and the inside pages of the national papers to the forefront of out attention ... only now, months after it should have.

Since it has been so scantily publicized, here is a little background information on SARS from the World Health Organization (WHO): SARS is a new disease which has its origins in Guangdong Province, China. The earliest known cases were identified in mid-November 2002. Since then, probable cases of SARS have been reported in 17 countries. Most SARS cases to date have occurred in young adults in Asia but it has been detected on all inhabited continents. Cases continue to increase in the United States with 154 persons under investigation. No deaths have so far been reported from the U.S., but there is concern as otherwise healthy individuals are now becoming infected.

Let's take a step back. There are already at least 105 people who died of SARS worldwide, and while that number seems to have leveled off in recent days, there are still more than 2,800 people infected. It's ridiculous to think that the sniper would ever have been able to kill 50 people let alone 100, but the sniper grabbed the headlines while SARS has lived for weeks in anonymity thanks to the mainstream media.

This is a virus we know very little about, but it seems to be killing about five percent of infected people. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the WHO think that is a relative of the coronovirus, but they are not sure. They think it's spread by direct exchange of fluids or even by coughing and sneezing, but they're not positive. They think infected people should be treated like those with acute and rare pneumonia, but, again, they're not sure. You don't have to be a cynic to imagine how incessant, hype-filled and generally inflammatory media coverage of a potential epidemic would be if every news outlet weren't completely consumed by the drip drops of news from the Middle East. For example, it's a shame that the Iraqi Museum was pillaged and thousands of works of ancient art were stolen, but CNN ran six different reports Monday afternoon about that story and they couldn't run one about SARS?

Ultimately, the problem is that so many people are completely unaware of the the dangers and facts about SARS. The mainstream media's ridiculous penchant for grabbing hold of the "hottest" story and pounding it for as much money as coverage can buy (examples: Enron, D.C. Sniper, Iraq War and from the Wayback Machine there was O.J.) has resulted in an uniformed public, that willing accepts whatever news it receives.

I am willing to admit that part of the reason that people don't know about SARS is that they don't make the effort to get the news, but those same people know that we are at war; they know that O.J. probably killed his wife and got off; they know that Enron went bust. Why? Because the news agencies repeated these stories ad nauseum. There may be something inherently wrong with that approach, but it's even more offensive when the media picks and chooses what to cover in such an inconsistent and opportunistic way.

Let's be honest. The most important thing going on is Operation Iraqi Freedom, but that should not imply that no other news gets reported. The war is intriguing, but it is by no means the only story deserving of coverage. Why not do CNN bits on SARS, run a front page article on something domestic or even, gasp, continue covering the same stories that were paramount before Iraq?