This morning, Eileen McNamara is in the right pew but the wrong church. She's right that the premature revelation of investigative information is a problem, a big problem, both for the reputation of the initial suspect and for the integrity of investigations.

There was a time police did not name a suspect until they had nailed down enough evidence to make an arrest. Now, police identify a ''person of interest" at the earliest stages of their investigation.

But she's wrong in blaming the police alone. Sure, cops should shut up and stop talking to reporters, granted. But I would venture to say there's more to this story.

What about the tremendous pressure that crime reporters receive from their editors to get something, anything, on a big crime story? Is that a factor? How about the reporters who cultivate disgruntled and often out-of-touch anonymous sources within the police department, manipulating them with fluff to get them to talk about things that they only know second or third hand? That can't be good.

Eileen is right. There's something wrong with the picture. But from where she's sitting, she's only seeing the half of it.

(See the about for a better idea of my own viewing angle.)