How can the media avoid convicting someone who is only a person of interest

An opinion piece in today's New York Times deals with the
Justice Department's clearing Steven J. Hatfill of any connections
to the mailing of anthrax. It took SIX YEARS for his exoneration,
during which time he was only declared a "person of interest."

The question the piece raises is when the media should identify a
"person of interest. Does the public's right to know (I have never
seen that right in the Constitution) override the destruction of a
person's life when there is insufficient evidence to enable a
grand jury to indict or even probable cause to arrest?

I personally have no problem with a name being released in connection
with a string of crimes where the public should be alerted so as to avoid
becoming another victim.

What I do have a problem with is the media deciding guilt or innocence
before any evidence is heard by a jury and a verdict reached.

What happens to one's presumption of innocence when the media is
doing nonstop commentary about how the person most probably is guilty.

People become jurors; people watch television; people read newspapers;
people listen to the radio. We are asking people to totally clear their minds
and brains of any information about the case received prior to being
sworn as jurors. Is this realistic?

Great Britain is one of a group of nations that prohibits the media from
publishing information about a trial beforehand or naming anyone prior
to a finding of guilt. I am normally against interference by
the government related to the media, but the damage to the innocent is
so great that in this area I concede it is probably a good restriction.

How do you feel about media reporting on those who have yet to stand trial?