Abstract
This article examines the child abduction problem during the year following the June 2002 Elizabeth Smart abduction by comparing three aspects of the problem: first, New York Times articles about child abductions; second, social scientific research findings reported in the NISMART-2 study; and third, the institution of AMBER Plans to deal with the problem. Analysis indicates that the Times and NISMART-2 offer markedly different pictures about the nature of the problem, and that AMBER Plans are more closely connected with the horror stories of stereotypical kidnappings offered by the news media. The use of AMBER Plans to combat the child abduction problem appears misguided, in that it fails to address the larger problem of more common, family abduction types. Discussion is offered regarding the relevance of the research findings with regards to the study of the abduction problem and suggestions are offered for future policy assessment.

Glenn W. Muschert
Miami University
Glenn W. Muschert is Assistant Professor of Sociology and Criminology Program Coordinator at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio. His interests are in the mass media coverage of high profile crimes including school shootings and child abductions.

Melissa Young-Spillers
Purdue University
Melissa Young-Spillers is a doctoral candidate in the Law and Society Program at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana. Her research interests lie in child welfare and victimization, and her doctoral work focuses on adoption outcomes for disabled children.

Dawn Carr
Miami University
Dawn Carr is a doctoral student in Miami University's Social Gerontology program. Her research areas include arts, creativity, and "productive" aging, sociological and gerontological theory, and the sociology of retirement. E-mail: carrdc@muohio.edu