A young woman goes missing in the nations capital. Among those interviewed within days of her disappearance is a prominent Democratic congressman who is an acknowledged friend of hers. The missing womans distraught parents make clear they think the congressman has been less than completely candid, and the legislator is interviewed a second, then a third time by police.
How do news organizations cover such an ongoing story? Do they, as some critics contend, just leap on the latest and most salacious scrap of information to keep readers hooked? Or do they try to adhere to appropriate journalistic standards? And what are the appropriate standards in a case like this, anyway?
With so much still unknown in the case of Chandra Levy starting with the young womans fate its far too early to draw weighty conclusions about the manner in which the story is being covered by the media or to evaluate whether the coverage is serving the public interest in any way. But I think its instructive nevertheless to get a glimpse behind the headlines at a few of the editorial decisions and discussions that have been going on at MSNBC.com, and, I suspect, in many other newsrooms around the country.
Looking at the congressman
For those who may have missed it, Chandra Levy is a 24-year-old former federal intern last heard from on May 1. Over last weekend, several news organizations quoted either police investigators or sources close to the investigation as saying that Rep. Gary Condit, who had previously described Levy publicly as a good friend, told police on Friday that he had had a long-term sexual relationship with the young woman. It was the latest in a series of reports last week that shifted the balance of media coverage at least temporarily from the missing woman to the Congressman.
This account of MSNBC.coms handling of the latest developments in the Levy story is by no means comprehensive. For one thing, MSNBC.com is a seven-day, 24-hour-a-day operation, with new versions of stories published as developments occur by editors based in different time zones. The breaking-news story published even an hour or two ago typically disappears when it is over-written because of some new development. Im willing to bet that no one on the staff has read every article the site has published on the case in the last week, since it would require near round-the-clock monitoring. I know I havent. Nor have I been privy to all the exchanges among editors, writers and producers who have had a hand in all those stories.
Editorial caution
What I have seen, however, is a caution among editors and producers, even at the expense of MSNBC.com being behind its competition in reporting some stories. Ive also seen and heard a number of difficult, professional questions being raised about the nature of this story and the guidelines that should inform its telling.
Theres no textbook on how to cover a story such as this one, so its no surprise that even though part of the same organization, journalists have differing sometimes conflicting views about whats appropriate. And since different ones are also in charge at different times of the weekly news cycle, those inconsistencies in approach sometimes show up in the stories published on the site.
The flight attendant
Something of a watershed in the coverage occurred just before the July 4 U.S. holiday. Flight attendant Anne Marie Smith told Fox television she had had an earlier affair with Condit. As MSNBC.com contemplated how to handle this development, senior news producer David Guilbault sent an email to various producers and editors with a hand in dealing with the story. I just want to share a concern that we might be crossing a difficult line today in the Chandra Levy story, Guilbault wrote, urging continued focus on case of the missing woman and avoiding the temptation of getting caught up in the inevitable cycle of public accusation and scandal.
MSNBC.com did wind up reporting Smiths allegations after NBCs Andrea Mitchell was able to confirm that police investigators assigned to the Levy case had interviewed Smith. At that point, the stewardess clearly became part of the Levy story.
Two days later, a reference to a newspaper article quoting an unnamed Levy family member as saying that the missing girl and Condit had had an affair was deleted from an MSNBC.com story. Another Guilbault e-mail reminded staffers of existing MSNBC.com guidelines for handling reports in competitive media that might contain statements from anonymous sources. Such stories should only be reported after independent confirmation, or if reported by MSNBC.coms editorial partners, NBC News, Newsweek or the Washington Post, he noted.
Questionable live vote
By last Friday, July 6, the Washington Post quoted Levys aunt, Linda Zamsky, who said that Levy had confided an affair with Condit to her. Zamskys account clearly raised the importance of Condit as a source of information about Levy. MSNBC.com featured that story prominently and also carried an account of an NBC News/Zogby International poll conducted in Condits home district indicating that a majority of his constituents wanted him to say more publicly about his relationship with Levy. The Web site went one step farther, however, attaching a Live Vote to the poll story asking MSNBC.com users whether they thought Condit should be more open about his relationship. While one may make a case for a scientific poll among Levys constituents on this question, I feel MSNBC.com overstepped the bounds of good taste as well as good journalism by adding a meaningless vote for its global audience to the story. (See About our polls, live votes and surveys for more on the differences between scientific and non-scientific surveys.)
(Frankly, I wasnt too keen subsequently to see a Live Vote on whether he should resign, either. Whatever facts emerge, I felt then -and still feel – that they added no value and only encouraged and facilitated the kind of speculation that I think the media still should be avoiding.)
Despite Guilbaults e-mail reminder, a story did appear briefly on the site early Saturday citing a San Francisco Chronicle article quoting unnamed law enforcement sources as saying a federal grand jury would be convened to investigate the case a report NBC News said was premature and misleading according to its sources.
That version was quickly overtaken when Newsweek and NBC News both reported that Condit had confirmed an affair with Levy in a third interview with police investigators last Friday night.
Two angles
The story of the missing intern has been unusual from the start because of Condits relationship with her. As a number of readers have noted, literally hundreds of people regularly disappear in this country without ever being mentioned in the media, much less given the attention that Chandra Levy has gotten. And Condit is the main reason. But given the developments of the last week, the story from a journalistic point of view has split into two, equally legitimate angles, it seems to me. The most important clearly remains the fate of Chandra Levy. But now there are also questions about the veracity of an elected official and the impact that may have had on progress in the investigation of Levys disappearance.
There will eventually be plenty to review about the medias performance in this case. Readers and journalists alike have raised many worthy topics. But the jury should remain out until we know much more. Meanwhile, it is good to know that serious journalists are at least asking themselves and their colleagues important questions about how theyre handling the ongoing mystery.
