WHILE I agree with columnist Adrian Walker’s assessment of racist stereotypes and the impact of the Charles Stuart case, I strongly disagree on another point: the quality of the news coverage of the case at the time (“Stuart case still felt,’’ Metro, Oct. 23). He qualifies his praise for the Globe’s reporting with a diplomatic reference to the paper being “criticized for being excessively credulous’’ in its initial coverage of the murder. The Globe was far from alone in being criticized, and deservedly so. Reporting on the case by every outlet, including the Boston Herald, The New York Times, and other national media, was appalling.
Most news coverage seemed based on rumor, as each outlet tried to increase its sales or ratings by being first with a new “fact.’’ It began with the stories that made every black man in Boston who owned a jogging suit a possible suspect. These were followed by reports of Charles Stuart going into rehab, countless so-called discoveries of the murder weapon, and much more.
This was not a moment when the media covered itself in glory, to borrow a phrase. As a friend commented to me at the time, “The Herald and Globe stories should be bundled together and submitted to the Pulitzer committee - for fiction.’’
Constantine Teig von Hoffman
Brighton 
