concentrated benefits and dispersed costs

"So a family members seems to have done it. And yet, has the media apologized for going crazy about Stranger Danger? Of course not."

This is related to the phenomenon of concentrated benefits and dispersed costs, in which a small group hoping for a large benefit has a distinct advantage over a larger group that can be put on the hook for a quantitatively larger cost, because that cost is dispersed so far and wide that no one actor feels a compelling need to get involved.

The classic case in the U.S. is the sugar lobby, in which a very small group of sugar growers is a major contributor to political candidates who protect their interests. The upshot is that the U.S. has protectionist laws restricting competition from overseas sugar producers that result in Americans paying far above the market price for sugar. However, because sugar is still relatively cheap and the extra few dollars paid for sugar annually are not enough to raise the ire of American citizens, nothing has been done to change this. True, there have been a few candy manufacturers that have closed up shop and moved their operations outside the U.S. to make use of cheaper sugar, but most Americans don't even know that this is going on.

In the case you give, the small harm inflicted on every member of society (but especially men) by the breakdown of trust engendered by such poorly reported stories has not yet caused the people to rise up to retaliate, even though a succession of such bad reporting has, over time, led to a gradual decline in community feeling that is quite palpable when compared to a society that has not fallen into this trap. On the other hand, the news media gets the concentrated benefit: they get ratings and advertising dollars, and if their misleading reporting destroys priceless community bonds they figure they still profit from it.