From the moment Gary Condit finally sat down with his chosen interviewers to talk about Chandra Levy’s disappearance and his long public silence on that subject, the hottest news story of the summer seemed to spin off into Never-Never Land.
Within a week of his marathon series of exclusive interviews with the Merced Sun-Star, Newsweek magazine, People magazine, MSNBC, Channel 13 and Connie Chung, the headlines made it clear that the story had evolved from a tragedy of a missing person to a political football game.
By the end of this past week analysts, columnists and comedians were piling on like NFL linebackers, naming winners and losers and announcing the score.
Condit was called “cowardly,” “toast” and “an eel,” but few new facts were actually revealed. August, you might be able to guess, is traditionally a slow time in the news business. The day after the interviews, the Los Angeles Times had a team of at least seven reporters working on follow-up coverage. The Page 1 story reported “Political Support for Condit Starts to Dim.” That story was based on what Washington and California elected officials had to say about his re-election odds.
The New York Times had four reporters on the story that same day, and ran a similar story inside the paper quoting national and state political figures. One Democratic pollster, who apparently had not conducted a poll, told the Times that only the voters in Condit’s district would decide the issue. The Times actually did talk with a dozen or so voters in Condit’s district.
The San Francisco Chronicle kept three reporters at work and ran a Page 1 headline that said, “Condit’s bid to answer critics called ‘disaster.’” The story cited “voters, pundits and crisis experts.” Two voters in Condit’s district were quoted. His performance was critiqued.
The Sacramento Bee’s front page was dominated by Condit stories and a very large graphic reporting the results of a national poll on the opinions of people around the country who watched television.
The Bee’s main story was a Washington-based report on what political folks thought about the television appearance. A secondary story reported on reactions from Condit’s district, including sketchy results from “a Survey USA poll conducted for News 10 (KXTV).” What that meant was not explained.
Comparatively speaking, The Bee’s coverage appeared to be conservative, if not restrained. The news stories all seemed to agree that the Chung interview was the most-watched television show of the summer. Politicians of both parties declared Condit was damaged goods politically, Condit “lost” the TV contest with Chung, and the voters who elected him remain divided but no one really knows how divided. There were lots of opinions and speculations about images and impact, but few hard facts.
How did Sacramento newspaper readers react to all the hoopla and the stories in the paper? They didn’t seem to be very interested. One reader who described himself as a Condit supporter from his district was angry. He felt “the media” had been intrusive and unfair to Condit and should leave him alone.
Another reader who is a frequent critic of the “liberal Bee” claimed Condit got a free ride from this newspaper “just like Bill Clinton.” And another felt “George Bush’s lies” about stem cell research were more newsworthy than the Condit interview with Chung. He complained that The Bee was protecting President Bush from criticism.
One or two others called to say The Bee was hiding Condit’s vital role on the House Intelligence Committee. (That had actually been reported more than once.) In all, less than a dozen people from among The Bee’s half-million-or-so readers that week reacted to the coverage that dominated newspapers and television.
Comment: I suspect Bee readers grew so weary of the story — one that had little to do with their lives or their congressional districts — that they simply did not react to overkill or missed opportunities when The Bee offered some of both.
The Bee’s Friday (Aug. 24) coverage was all over Chung’s network interview, but did not report a local television station’s interview, or the contents of a longer interview in a Valley newspaper.
Saturday morning’s (Aug. 25) Page 1 coverage, labeled “Condit fallout,” would also have been an easy target. Half the Bee’s front page was devoted to national television-watchers’ opinions on the interview with a politician of no national importance. A massive graphic reported on a meaningless national poll that dealt with superficial questions.
Then on Monday The Bee, and dozens of other media, bit on a publicity stunt by a lawyer who promised significant legal action against Condit and delivered nothing significant. The follow-up stories were subdued.
Like reviewing theater
Bee readers could not seem to get worked up very much. Seven letters to the editor appeared. All were written by local folks, judging the performance of a congressman they cannot vote for or against or rating Chung’s skills as an interviewer.
An odd phrase kept appearing in all the coverage: “Condit’s performance.” It was as if Condit’s interviews were actually entertainment events, and should be reviewed like a theater performance. All that was missing was a nice little label — “A Review.”
One reader who wanted The Bee to pursue another story wrote this: “Maybe instead of wasting so much ink and time on what Gary Condit said during a television broadcast, The Bee could send the reporters out on a little tougher assignment and find some real news.” He wanted a follow-up to the earlier stories about Oracle’s contract with the state, granted without competitive bids. I am sure other subjects are equally deserving of more attention.
The Bee in general has not done a bad job on the Levy/Condit story over the months, particularly when compared to some other newspapers and television generally, and has tried to exercise some restraint. But the past week or so the television-and-tabloid-created furor is dragging everyone down.
It is time to give this story a rest.
