On The Media is produced by:
The Washington Post is wrapping up a 12-part series on the 2001 murder of Chandra Levy. Some critics, like the Washington City Paper's editor Erik Wemple, have wondered why the story is worth revisiting. Jeff Leen, assistant managing editor in charge of the Post's investigations unit, explains.
While it may be entertaining and even somewhat educational, if an article or series does not inform readers about important new discoveries or current events--does it really deserve to be called "news"? The skimpy insubstantiality of what passes for news is the outrage.
As a DC resident who hiked the same trails for years prior to and subsequent to Chandra's disappearance, I followed the story closely in 2001, and again recently in the Post. I also found the editor's interview with Bob Garfield interesting. I'm assuming that others have already pointed out the misstatement Bob made saying that Gary Condit was Chandra's boss - he wasn't. At the time of the murder, I thought that Condit had nothing to do with it - Congressmen have affairs all the time with young women and don't go around murdering them. I also was frustrated that we didn't learn more at that time about why the police didn't pursue the possibility that the assailant of the other two women was guilty of murdering Chandra. With that background, I did react to this current series as pointing out how the investigation went wrong, and disagree with Bob's skepticism about that. I appreciated the article filling in the gaps. Bob did make a good point, I thought, that a newcomer to the story might not have understood that Condit was innocent until later in the series. That didn't occur to me since of course I was very familiar with the story. I thought the series was well done and very interesting. I look forward to more articles written like this.
I hate to imply such a thing, but the first thing I wondered, when I heard Bob Garfield being so negatively critical of the series, was--did he give the series a careful reading?
The few chapters I read in the series seemed like very good reporting of the facts in a mostly chronological order. I didn't find it sensational at all. Sure, it was well written and kept my interest, but I don't think it was reaching for entertainment value at all. I also recall that I lost track of the story back when it was current. This new series seemed like it was done in a way that the authors took the time to objectively evaluate all the facts, uncover a couple of new ones and then laid it out for me so I could judge for myself what all had really happened in the case.
On a kinder note, most weeks, when I have the time, I get my news from the best show about the news, OTM. It's a real treat!
What strikes me as sad about this whole case is that the mishandling of the original investigation seems to have stemmed from the media exploiting the scandal aspect to cover a huge news hole and, then, interest in the case evaporated as soon as 9/11 filled that hole, big time.
Would that they would cover real issues to fill that hole on a consistent basis rather than act like bloodhounds scenting... well, blood.
Please keep your comments relevant to this entry. Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. All comments on On the Media are moderated. On the Media reserves the right to edit any comments posted on this site. Please read the onthemedia.org Comment Guidelines before posting.
Back to Episode
