News items covering the attacks between May 1 and October 31, 1982, in the three major dailies in Toronto were scrutinized, their sources accounted for, and analyzed. Two of the papers gave considerable play to the attacks, using interviews with individual citizens more than the third paper, which relied on 'authorized knowers' like police as sources. All three newspapers tended to blame the victim, the criminal justice system, or the offender for the attacks and rarely paid attention to the possible social causes such as the portrayal of women in the media. These more critical accounts tended to come in the form of letters-to-the-editor columns, which in one newspaper, were reoutinely dismissed by editors. Different sources had different versions for the cause of the problem. Police and criminal justice personnel tended to focus on the victim, suggesting that women could prevent further attacks if they took precautions. Citizens, usually women, also held this view, implying that women were to collaborate in their own control and accept restrictions on freedom. There were some critical statements from experts and citizen groups regarding the portrayal of women and social pathology as the cause of attacks. Overall, moral panics tend to serve the news media well. They draw readership wanting to be entertained and titillated, provide sufficient copy, and allow the media to serve their function of questioning authority and forcing accountability. Excerpts from news stories and letters, tables, and 41 references are included.