after glimpsing at an article on the already highly publicized Sabrina Aisenberg case in today's USA today, and it appearing that there is absolutely no new information on the case, I got to thinking "how do some cases become more famous than others?"

perhaps the most widely publicized case was the JonBenet Ramsey case, where every thing that the Ramseys said/did was scrutinized and analyzed to the nth degree, whereas other cases seem to have been completely ignored by the media?

why is this? any thoughts?

I think it is mainly what the people that make up the various media outlets decide. If they think the person that is the victim of something, deceased for unkown reasons or is missing has more personal "appeal" to the general public's attention than someone else, then they'll go out of their way to keep reporting about that case moreso than others.

Also, I think it's definitely the circumstances of the cases and how cut-and-dried or how mysterious they seem to be, in regards to what really happened to the person in question, that determine how interested "we" are in them.

IMHO:

1) The age of the victim
2) The gender of the victim
3) The race/ethnicity of the victim
4) The "likability" of the victim (e.g. Not a druggie or a criminal)
5) The amount of effort the family puts into the case.

Are all deciding factors in whether a case ends up ignored or will have a great deal of "activity" involving it.

Socio-economic status plays a role as well. Younger women and teens/children from middle class or affluent WASP backgrounds get far more focus on their cases, especially when it's initially believed to be caused by a perpetrator who was a stranger. 'Honor Student abducted from parking lot' pulls in more interest than 'Missing teen last seen leaving with several acquaintances in car." Also the 'stranger in paradise' factor -- an attractive female tourist in an exotic locale who falls prey to a local.

While some people don't believe that bad things (physical or sexual abuse) occur in so called 'good' families, the media and the general public does love to focus on those cases where the professional, mid/upper class family isn't as normal as they initially appeared. Reminiscent of Victorian era crime sensationalism.

IMHO:

1) The age of the victim
2) The gender of the victim
3) The race/ethnicity of the victim
4) The "likability" of the victim (e.g. Not a druggie or a criminal)
5) The amount of effort the family puts into the case.

Are all deciding factors in whether a case ends up ignored or will have a great deal of "activity" involving it.

I think you've nailed it on the head. "Missing white girl syndrome" is a well-documented phenomenon. Cases where the victim was white, young, attractive, or wealthy usually get much more coverage.

I think you've nailed it on the head. "Missing white girl syndrome" is a well-documented phenomenon. Cases where the victim was white, young, attractive, or wealthy usually get much more coverage.

That does play into it. Frankly, there is probably a staggering backlog of cold cases involving prostitutes, drug addicts, gay men and inner city denizens. Those cases may not be as "neat and tidy" as "Ashley" from the suburbs going missing on her way to her tennis lessons and, as such, get a short shrift.

Killers (especially serial ones) know this and choose their victims accordingly. When they DON'T, that lack of selection usually brings their actions to light.

Hopefully now that Internet has grown so large and accessible to most people and now that DNA testing is so readily available, there will be far fewer cold cases and unsolved mysteries.

That does play into it. Frankly, there is probably a staggering backlog of cold cases involving prostitutes, drug addicts, gay men and inner city denizens. Those cases may not be as "neat and tidy" as "Ashley" from the suburbs going missing on her way to her tennis lessons and, as such, get a short shrift.

Killers (especially serial ones) know this and choose their victims accordingly. When they DON'T, that lack of selection usually brings their actions to light.

Hopefully now that Internet has grown so large and accessible to most people and now that DNA testing is so readily available, there will be far fewer cold cases and unsolved mysteries.

I agree with you.

In theory it's not always fair, because we're all human beings and just about everyone has loved ones. But there does tend to be more overall sympathy towards younger kids (just because they can't defend themselves as well), elderly and just anyone who is more upstanding.

Another reason is the internet and mass media. Don't you think the earlier cases seem even MORE mysterious, grizzly and all, just because there's very little information on some of them?

I think this is also why alot of the cases in UM's glory days were older (pre-1985, oftentimes in the 70s or even 60s and occasionally really old, such as missing kids or lost loves). Just because it took time to spread the word back then, and once UM got popular, victims and police departments probably contacted them to see what they could do.

Nowadays it's not as easy for something to go totally unnoticed. If there were a present day UM (I mean that was similar in feel to the early show) I bet they would primarily just cover cases from the last 5 years or so.