The sorry saga of the falsely accused Duke lacrosse players refuses to go away. Yesterday, more than three dozen players and some of their family members filed a federal lawsuit holding the university, the city of Durham, N.C., and some officials responsible for emotional duress suffered during the whirlwind days and months of the case.

Cutting through the legalese, what the players -- none of whom were charged in the dismissed sex assault case -- are saying, especially as it applies to Duke, is that instead of supporting them, the university sat back while they were under general harassment.

Not named as a defendant in the lawsuit is former prosecutor Mike Nifong, who was disbarred as a result of his inappropriate handling of the case, because -- bottom line -- Nifong is about to declare bankruptcy. The woman who made the original rape accusation also is not a defendant. The plaintiffs' attorney basically said she has enough problems with mental disturbance and drug issues.

But also not named is any news organization. And I realize that there may be no sound legal grounds to include a newspaper or a TV or radio station or an Internet site as a defendant in such a suit, but -- and I'll likely be considered a heretic in the church of the Fourth Estate for saying so -- that's too bad.

If indeed the players and their families suffered emotionally, if a player's reputation remains forever tarnished as "that guy who was on the Duke lacrosse team when," then a fair amount of blame falls on the media.

And not for merely reporting the story. That's what we do. And sometimes, simply reporting on a case fairly and down the middle causes emotional distress to the innocent and creates unflattering impressions that last a long time. Still, it is our obligation to do the reporting.

But this case was different. There was something akin to a Salem-like hysteria going on in the early days of the Duke lacrosse case with newspaper columnists and broadcast and Internet pundits taking bits and pieces, such as some players' early reluctance to talk with investigators, and building a case of obvious guilt. The judgment was as vitriolic as it was premature.

To be fair, those types of observations, when they appeared in print, came largely from opinion writers and not in news stories. But the public sometimes doesn't discern among the types of information with which it's bombarded, and the resentment and tension in Durham and on the Duke campus fed on the in-print and on-air rushes to judgment.

And I would argue that the same applied to Duke administrators who were making their decisions not in calm, reasoned deliberation but buffeted by a maelstrom of media reaction.

Of course, they should have known better.

Still, if there is culpability on the part of those named in the current lawsuit, meaning Duke and the city of Durham, for harm inflicted on the innocent, let's recall that there is an important unnamed defendant who bears substantial responsibility.

bill.ordine@baltsun.com