July 13, 2001

5:36 AM

Did the Hell's Angels do it? It could have been the landlord. Or is it just hoax? We could take the advice of a professional astrologer or a psychic or maybe the answer lies encoded in the Bible? Or is it just a Republican plot to discredit a Democrat and bolster Bush's "dismal approval rating" (which is currently only 12 points higher than Clinton's was at the same point in his presidency.) No! The Democrats framed him because of his conservative views! What about the Mossad? Maybe you can locate her body in this aerial photograph.

There are just HOURS of fun to be had over at ChandraLevy.com - a very unofficial clearinghouse for information on the ongoing investigation into her disappearance which bears little resemblance to the staid demeanor of findchandra.org.

My favorite? Where is Ted Kennedy's car right now anyway? Just in case. You check the Potomac, I'll look in the tidal basin...
posted by RevGreg (70 comments total)

I'm terribly happy this tragedy has entertained you so much and given you so much fodder for your twisted sense of mirth.

I certainly hope no child of yours turns up missing one day, you fuck.
posted by keith at 5:55 AM on July 13, 2001

What is it with people identifying so strongly with child-related crimes? As someone without kids (and no intention of having any) perhaps someone else can explain the strength of keith's outburst.

I could give a pile of examples of things that kill more people (even children) (hey, SUVs!). Here (UK) public response was (I suspect) even worse over Jamie Bulger. What causes this irrational, emotional, knee-jerk response?
posted by andrew cooke at 6:05 AM on July 13, 2001

keith --
Would you have given the same response if she'd been 20 years older? Even 10? By all accounts she would still be someone's daughter.
She's 24 -- an adult by most folks' standards. She made choices when it came to her relationship with Gary Condit. Her family is rightfully scared and frustrated, but she was not a unwitting grade-schooler on a field trip to the Capitol.
Lighten up on RevGreg.
posted by mtevis at 6:22 AM on July 13, 2001

The notion of Infanticide is very strong in the history of western culture. Its everywhere in movies, TV, pornography etc.. Shellys Frankenstein and Kubricks 2001 are allegorical infanticide storys. We love to destroy that which we treasure most. It brings out a lot of strong emotions in people.. if you want to write a good movie script or book.. do infanticide. Gets lots of attention.
posted by stbalbach at 6:25 AM on July 13, 2001

Evidently, you have a child, the center of your personal universe shifts from you to it. Sounds creepy, but there is it.
How this kills the ability to find amusement in random abstract concepts is beyond me.

As a self-worshiping childless prick, I'm vastly amused by this site.
posted by dong_resin at 6:26 AM on July 13, 2001

I'd hardly call a 23-year-old woman who was banging a politician more than twice her age a "child".

In any case, the protectiveness of children seems built into the species, as in most mammalian species. The only people who don't jerk knees over this seem to be the ones who have consciously decided not to heed this part of their nature.

The real problems start when the behavior is manipulated to sell products or ideas. Buy an SUV or minivan, because otherwise if you're in a car crash your children will be crushed. Buy antibacterial soap, otherwise your children will get sick. Support the dismantling of the First Amendment via the CDA, otherwise your children might be able to make informed decisions about sex at the tender age of 17! Won't someone please think of the children?

</rant></thread-hijack>
posted by Vetinari at 6:28 AM on July 13, 2001

I'm terribly happy this tragedy has entertained you so much and given you so much fodder for your twisted sense of mirth.

I certainly hope no child of yours turns up missing one day, you fuck.

sarcasm n.

1. A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound.
2. A form of wit that is marked by the use of sarcastic language and is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule.
3. The use of sarcasm. See Synonyms at wit¹.

If you had bothered to wake up first, you would have noticed that all my sarcasm (see citation above) was directed at this particular site which is just an appalling creation, you fuck (very eloquent by the way.)

I'm content to allow the professional investigators that my tax dollars pay for do their job and have them let me know how that goes - I find it bizarrre that people would cook up these fantastic theories and then think anyone would care.
posted by RevGreg at 6:31 AM on July 13, 2001

I think that there are a few ways of reading that site, among them:

1. As a legitimate forum where interested parties can share theories.

2. As a joke site attempting to make fun of a horrible situation.

3. As a combination of the two, where tragedy is countered with humor.


The question of where does this site fall, to me, is worthy of discussion. In my opinion, since it is a public forum, each contributer (and I am using the term liberally) has a unique take, and therefore, the site becomes a combination of the three. I wonder if the creators of the site began with the intention to create "1.", became innundated with crass responders who decided the site should become "2.", then ended up with "3.".
posted by Avogadro at 6:34 AM on July 13, 2001

...consciously decided not to heed this part of their nature

(I've only quoted the veiled ad-hominem attack, but my reply is to the general idea that this kind of response is normal) You don't see other animals getting upset if a child dies (or disappears). Yes, they try to protect them, but once they're gone, well, that seems to be the end of the matter.

I suspect the answer is more to do with being immersed in some kind of hysterical feedback loop via the mass-media...
posted by andrew cooke at 6:37 AM on July 13, 2001

I think Condit's official site is way more entertaining than this one. For example, the highlighted link on the main page is for [insert ominous horror movie sound effect here] Intern Opportunities. There's also a link to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Kids (nothin' 'bout missing and exploited interns, though. Pity). Why, Gary's even got a Kid's Page! The Kid's Page has links that allow you to write Gary an e-mail. Wonder how many he's received with the name "Chandra" in the subject line...
posted by Reggie452 at 6:39 AM on July 13, 2001

I'm no stranger to sarcasm, RevGreg. Not by a long-shot. But your comment about "bothering to wake up," does, however, ring true. The more I read your post I began to see how perhaps that was your point. I haven't finished my first pot of coffee yet.

And about the "fuck"-calling, I apologize. That was out of line.

And to the others who have posted, you're right, Levy is not a child, but as a parent, I sympathize with her parents who could not possibly have seen this coming. One day you're talking to your kid on the phone, one day she's just gone. Poof. I can't even imagine the enormity of that.

Aside from that, I actually knew Chandra Levy. I worked with her when she was a Sports intern at the Modesto Bee newspaper while I was there, so I suppose her disappearance strikes me particularly hard.

Don't get me wrong, I didn't know her all that well. We exchanged co-worker-like pleasantries here and there, but that was about all. But of all the people you meet in your life, you never expect to read about their very bizarre disappearance. It's just weird.

So, RevGreg, I officially back off and I hope you accept my apology. I'm heading for the coffee pot now.
posted by keith at 6:48 AM on July 13, 2001

"I suspect the answer is more to do with being immersed in some kind of hysterical feedback loop via the mass-media.."

I tend to believe that the grief felt by the parents is completely genuine, but the almost fetish-like focus on their irrational emotional responses is where the media puffery lies. Maybe that's what you meant, too.

Also, let us all recall when we posted drunk, groggy or fresh from the bukakke rooms of the internet, and throw keith a group hug.
posted by dong_resin at 6:51 AM on July 13, 2001

Has anybody else noticed that an anagram for Gary Condit is "crying toad"? I don't know why, but I found that amusing. Maybe it's just me.
posted by Reggie452 at 6:51 AM on July 13, 2001

it's just you...
posted by Avogadro at 6:54 AM on July 13, 2001

I have repetedly asked the Washington Post to remove their links to ChandraLevy.com, which only lends credibility to a garbage site that solicits leads and conspiracy theories for entertainment purposes. People who have information might give it to these NetHollywood fucks, thinking it is the Levy family's site, and potentially compromise the investigation.

Furthermore, I am disgusted at how many people are digging up other murders that have happened in DC, trying to somehow tie them to an affair with a congressman too -- all for entertainment purposes. The sister of a friend was murdered a few years ago, and people keep calling her "the other missing intern" -- even though she was an intern eight years before she was killed. People surmising that she was knocked off because she was sleeping with a politician is disrespectful to her memory and her family.

By the way, NetHollywood is also the makers of the Bonnie Bakley site. What a sick way to advertise your web hosting services.
posted by jennak at 6:54 AM on July 13, 2001

keith: Don't know about others, but I appreciate your apology and your official backing-off. I understand about the coffee thing.
posted by davidmsc at 7:07 AM on July 13, 2001

And about the "fuck"-calling, I apologize. That was out of line.

Accepted, you fuck. Sarcasm again! No problem, I sometimes am a bit excitable when I get up in the morning too.

Aside from that, I actually knew Chandra Levy.

And you have my sympaties, she is a beautiful woman and I hope for her sake and the sake of her family and friends there is an adequate resolution to this story.

I do however wish to repeat the link for FindChandra.org which is the legitimate site dedicated to directing people with information to the authorities working on this case.
posted by RevGreg at 7:13 AM on July 13, 2001

" You don't see other animals getting upset if a child dies" what bearing does that have. what does that mean. feedback loop?, what is this an H-mobius issue, assailing the media savvy.
"I'm content to allow the professional investigators that my tax dollars pay for do their job and have them let me know how that goes " and content to be sarcastic? with those redirect links-i see your little trip into to divine comedia and think it of little merit. (if only on technical terms)But the ramifications of this being political makes it more...sardonic(like making fun of that photo-"you seen her boy, no sir but she sure looks hot" Will you make fun of that intern who got whacked at a coffee house in D.C. when clinton was in office(they found her, face down-like an execution) and i never post while in bukkake room, i wait until that steel door rises, that music blaring...
posted by clavdivs at 7:22 AM on July 13, 2001

And you have my sympaties, she is a beautiful woman and I hope for her sake and the sake of her family and friends there is an adequate resolution to this story.

And if she wasn't beautiful? Oh never mind.
posted by justgary at 7:24 AM on July 13, 2001

andrew cooke: apologies, no ad-hominem intended (actually, I was trying to be as neutral as possible in stating the point, neither protraying those having a strong child-protective response as acting solely on animal instinct, nor those with weak response as remoreless automatons). I personally think the cultural hysteria surrounding children has gone overboard, and I've arrived at that conclusion though rational means - so perhaps I've generalized too much from personal experience.

You have raised a valid point, though - I hadn't thought of separating the protective impulse from the post-event cultural hysteria about tragedies involving children. I do still think they're connected - the hysteria comes from symbolic projection of parents (or those with a strong protective response in general) into the situation of those who have lost the children involved.

Of course, that projection is facilitated by the media - tragic stories about kids push product, after all - so I agree there's some mass-media feedback loop at work here.
posted by Vetinari at 7:26 AM on July 13, 2001

Child protection? It's been said here before, but Chandra was not a child. Mercy. And the concept with the original post was very apparent to me - the story is being covered in the most sensational, eye-roll-inducing manner imaginable. It's baby Jessica in the well meets Bill & Monica meets O.J., only this time it's off the charts on the infotainment scale. William Safire reports in today's NY Times that there are 140 missing persons from the D.C. area alone at the moment. Why no public heart bleeding for them? The story's absolutely legitimate. The coverage of it has, however, goes beyond what you might call a new low. It's lower than low.

On caveat, though: If it's All Chandra All the Time on the news now, do you expect people not to do the water cooler type chat about it (or not to be darkly humorous about the coverage)?
posted by raysmj at 7:47 AM on July 13, 2001

...consciously decided not to heed this part of their nature

(I've only quoted the veiled ad-hominem attack, but my reply is to the general idea that this kind of response is normal) You don't see other animals getting upset if a child dies (or disappears). Yes, they try to protect them, but once they're gone, well, that seems to be the end of the matter.

I really think reading that as an ad hominem attack, veiled or otherwise, is overly sensitive. I got no impression that he was talking about you.

As for the rest of your argument, animals, generally, are not very emotional. You don't see them get upset when their homes are destroyed by flood or fire. That doesn't mean that people shouldn't get upset.

In any case, I've seen footage of a mother ape grieving for her dead child.

In our society, the crimes that upset us most are those that violate special obligations. Patricide is an example (Oedipus); people are supposed to feel special obligations to their fathers, so killing them is an especially horrific crime.

Society in general is supposed to feel a special obligation to children. Our own children most of all, but all children are included.

Ms. Levy was not a child, and the media circus surrounding her death has much less to do with her youth than with the possibility of seeing a political figure topple. And, or course, the possibility that she was pregnant with that person's child.
posted by anapestic at 7:54 AM on July 13, 2001

Will you make fun of that intern who got whacked at a coffee house in D.C. when clinton was in office

SHE WASN'T AN INTERN!!! They found her in a river. Point to this so-called execution evidence. And what does it matter if Clinton was in office?

Goddamnit, these are real people with families who are still grieving. Find the real killers instead of trying to draw everyone who's ever been murdered in DC into a titilating political conspiracy theory.
posted by jennak at 8:03 AM on July 13, 2001

"surrounding her death" who said she was dead!!!!!!!!!Oedipus killed his father basically without knowing it and patricide(from Latin) was virtual policy in empirical rome.If my father asked me to end his life when he was at his worst(illness) I would not have hesitated. Andrews point on animals was good but apes dont have the machination capability as we glorious bags of enlightenment. Ana- i see your view and do agree with its...meaning.
posted by clavdivs at 8:08 AM on July 13, 2001

comedy=tragedy/time
posted by elsar at 8:12 AM on July 13, 2001

On caveat, though: If it's All Chandra All the Time on the news now, do you expect people not to do the water cooler type chat about it (or not to be darkly humorous about the coverage)?

Of course, it isn't All Chandra All the Time if you watch CBS, since they have yet to say one word about it. If Condit were Republican and Fox News were ignoring this story, there'd be several hundred MetaFilter posts pointing that out.
posted by ljromanoff at 8:13 AM on July 13, 2001

Actually, within the context of Oedipus it didn't matter at all that he didn't know he was killing his father and marrying his mother. The transgression was considered just as bad.

Euthanasia is really a separate issue since it could be argued that you're protecting your father against a greater evil than death.

Patricide is still considered an especially egregious offense (the Menendez brothers, for example), Roman practices notwithstanding. I'm not aware that most of us are taking our moral cues from I, Claudius.
posted by anapestic at 8:16 AM on July 13, 2001

the starbucks killing (someone help me with that link as im stupid) perhaps not an intern(thats what i recall) the clinton thing was for time perspective(i would have said the year, but i dont have that story handy(ok, be prepared)
The cops found her wallet on top of her body. no money gone and the police caught the killer...sorry to confuse. and if this was sinister, what makes you think, people like us would know the truth if said 'spooky' occurrence occurred. Your right, these families must be hurtin. like people hurt everyday. I use humor to cope(dong uses humor-to grow his killer-for-hire tulips, ive seen them, they play scrabble AND get dong chicks from the service. I WANT A TULIP)
posted by clavdivs at 8:19 AM on July 13, 2001

none the less, they occurred, your inserting morals. besides it should seem evident that patricide is "bad", like you did not even have to say it. you missed the V and i prefer Graves(though Jacobi is a genius) and be more worried by your practicum slip-up,"media circus surrounding her death" HUNH,WHATS THAT? media circus-hhhmmn circus, circus, know lets see, oh circus maximus....
posted by clavdivs at 8:34 AM on July 13, 2001

ljr: I don't watch freakin' CBS, so I wouldn't know. I don't watch any network news at all. It's so freakin' 1981. Network news is extremely outre, you know?
posted by raysmj at 8:34 AM on July 13, 2001

Clavdivs -- are you an idiot, or an insensitive prick?

You're mixing up two separate cases, and you're completely wrong about both. If you don't know anything about these people, don't start talking bullshit conspiracy theories.
And no way in hell am I going to provide a link so you can salivate over the details....leave them out of this.
posted by jennak at 8:36 AM on July 13, 2001

But I just checked CBS News (didn't know the site - just typed in cbsnews.com) and, lookie, Chandra is Story No. 2. Back the drawing board.
posted by raysmj at 8:37 AM on July 13, 2001

Part of the growing outrage & coverage of this story stems from something beyond the fact that a relatively young, attractive "outsider" has gone missing...and that is the fact that Condit's actions & past increasingly point to a man who is, in a word, scum. If all accounts are true, and based on his admission about Ms Levy, then he has engaged in extramarital affairs on a regular basis & with many partners. He has (according to published reports) bullied or otherwise "asked" his paramours to sign affadavits denying said trysts. He has obstructed justice, lied to the police, lied to the Levy family, lied to the media, and lied to his constituents. Once the first lie was uncovered, the walls start cracking, and people naturally (for better or worse) smell a rat...which drives further coverage.

Bottom line: the enormous amount of coverage (which I find excessive) is being generated not JUST because of a pretty young lady, but because Condit's actions trigger the fuse of many Americans who feel increasingly contemptuous of politicians who lie, manipulate, and otherwise walk the corridors of power with impunity.

And to those who think that this is similar to the Clinton/Lewinsky impeachment fiasco, and that we should just leave him/it alone because sexual activity is "private" and has no bearing on a public servant's ability to carry out his/her duties, it's not...because in that case, there was no missing person who in all likelihood met with foul play.

Come on, people...nobody's perfect, perhaps, but certainly an elected official, sworn to uphold our laws & represent the best principles of America and ideally serve as a role model, should be able to keep it in his f***ing pants, tell the truth, and have some integrity. Right?
posted by davidmsc at 8:51 AM on July 13, 2001

no, not at all, i raised no conspiracy, someone else did. i really dont put much credence in those things"idiot, or an insensitive prick?" i can be both, but not now. Now here is where the bear shits kiddos.ohhh the killer tulips, jesus were are you coming from. before you leave me out(boo fuckin hoo) take my word, point for point and refute what i have said(KILLER TULIPS IS A JOKE) i mean do it, done rant then call names, then call for some form of censorship. That shit gets my ire up and it is up. you have some homework to do. SO DO IT. put your brain where your indignation is. (few listen to me anyway so your point is taken) the two cases relate to young women who've meet a bad end (one dead, one missing) while in service to our country.
posted by clavdivs at 8:55 AM on July 13, 2001

davidmsc: Come on, people - what people? Anyone here say Condit was just super-groovy or something?
posted by raysmj at 9:00 AM on July 13, 2001

Clavdivs -- can you just email me and I'll set you straight?

You're confusing 2 cases which involved 4 people. There's few similarities between them. I know these cases personally.
posted by jennak at 9:04 AM on July 13, 2001

Sorry, raysmj...I've seen too much coverage the last few days of people who claim that Condit is a "good congressman" who does "good things" for his district. Didn't mean to impugn MeFi-ers. At least about this thread...yet... :)
posted by davidmsc at 9:04 AM on July 13, 2001

If Condit were Republican and Fox News were ignoring this story, there'd be several hundred MetaFilter posts pointing that out.

E-mail your address and I'll send a towel you can cry into, ljromanoff.

Condit has been blasted on MetaFilter in numerous threads. If no one noticed that CBS Evening News hasn't joined the anti-Condit media gangbang, I think the most likely reason is that few of us watch or care about the program.
posted by rcade at 9:05 AM on July 13, 2001

"can you just email me and I'll set you straight?" no i wont. I was not baiting anyone. if you know these cases i want to know you not at all. just tell the truth and give a newbie like me some slack. no. im wrong. we should be cut little,if no slack. i post to MeFi because this is, well school to me in a ways, and part of it is admitting when im wrong.(so if im wrong, tell me and a little note on why)((mr.dhart, where art thou)) im taking up space, space that could be used to help further this thread, oh but it was a sarcastic thread. 'self-policing'
when i saw that i said, hey maybe there are...ah fuck it. I guess practicum "dont get theirs" not today anyways.
posted by clavdivs at 9:22 AM on July 13, 2001

How I love grammar, punctuation, and sanity.
posted by jennak at 9:40 AM on July 13, 2001

"How I love grammar, punctuation, and sanity."

Overrated.
posted by dong_resin at 10:01 AM on July 13, 2001

Clavdivs is off his meds today, I fear. Anyway. . .

Condit's actions trigger the fuse of many Americans who feel increasingly contemptuous of politicians who lie, manipulate, and otherwise walk the corridors of power with impunity.

Actually, i think it's more fair to say that Condit's actions trigger the fuse of many Americans who feel increasingly contemptuous of anyone who lies, manipulates and obstructs an official police investigation for no purpose other than the cover up of relatively benign personal failings -- knowing full well that their lies are, have been and will be an impediment into the case.

I will be very happy on the day that Gary Condit is charged with obstruction of justice and impeding an ongoing police investigation. He lied repeatedly to the police, to the public, to the nation, he very likely subborned perjury, and all (at the very least) to just protect his image. I am disheartened and amazed (in a bad way) at the unthinking nitwits who continue to parrot the "he's a good congressman" codswallop. What difference on earth does that make when he's also a dishonest, despicable slimeball?
posted by Dreama at 10:03 AM on July 13, 2001

"He passed and I never saw him again. But I recognized him. He was a Johnson." -Wm. S Burroughs.
posted by clavdivs at 10:28 AM on July 13, 2001

But I just checked CBS News (didn't know the site - just typed in cbsnews.com) and, lookie, Chandra is Story No. 2. Back the drawing board.

'Where's Chandra?': News outlets take different angles
David Bauder - Associated Press
Wednesday, July 11, 2001


New York --- If you watch cable news channels, with the drumbeat of ''Where's Chandra?'' headlines, you'd think the disappearance of a Washington intern was all the country was talking about.

Yet if you relied on the ''CBS Evening News'' to know what's going on, you wouldn't even know Chandra Levy was missing.

For television networks, the story of Chandra Levy and U.S. Rep. Gary Condit (D-Calif.) is reviving arguments about restraint and taste among news organizations with vastly different opinions on how to treat the story.

''It seems to me there's been a complete suspension of doubt, fairness and objectivity in this story,'' said Jim Murphy, executive producer of the ''CBS
Evening News.''

To date, Dan Rather's broadcast hasn't mentioned a word about the story.
posted by ljromanoff at 10:48 AM on July 13, 2001

If Condit were Republican and Fox News were ignoring this story, there'd be several hundred MetaFilter posts pointing that out.

E-mail your address and I'll send a towel you can cry into, ljromanoff.

You know I'm completely right, though. And half of those hundred would spell 'Fox' as 'Faux' as if that's still clever.
posted by ljromanoff at 10:52 AM on July 13, 2001

To date, Dan Rather's broadcast hasn't mentioned a word about the story.

I can see CBS's point of view. They feel there isn't substantial evidence yet that proves that a connection between the affair and the connection.

But, LJR, don't turn this into a partisan issue. Because it's not. Dems and Republicans alike think that Condit is scum and should have been more forthcoming.
posted by jennak at 10:53 AM on July 13, 2001

But, LJR, don't turn this into a partisan issue. Because it's not. Dems and Republicans alike think that Condit is scum and should have been more forthcoming.

I agree that it isn't a partisan issue. Too bad Dan Rather doesn't.
posted by ljromanoff at 10:55 AM on July 13, 2001

If Condit were Republican and Fox News were ignoring this story, there'd be several hundred MetaFilter posts pointing that out.

He's a "blue dog" democrat (the founder no less) which is precisely the same thing is a moderately conservative republican, policy wise.
posted by malphigian at 11:01 AM on July 13, 2001

You know I'm completely right, though.

I know that the last time someone fixated this strongly on Dan Rather, he was called Kenneth and punched in the mouth.
posted by rcade at 11:08 AM on July 13, 2001

Where is the, "He's a good Congressman" statement coming from (pundits, who are hired to say stupid s*** off the top of their heads, lawmakers, citizens of Condit's district, what?), and in what context? You want another AP report? Tom Delay, it is said, has even been restrained in his comments about Condit. It's called innocence assumed until guilt proven. The only thing we know now is that he had an affair and didn't tell anyone, possibly irreparably harming the investigation. I say possibly, because you don't even know that for certain. Police and reporters still might be barking up the wrong tree now that they know about the affair (and I presume that police are checking out every lead possible). The only person in Congress now to show any restraint is one Bob Barr, who has a less-than-stellar track record in the fidelity department. They may all think he's a scum, and probably do, but showing some restraint is acting like 1) a mature adult and 2) a member of Congress. Which is more than you can say for Rep. Condit at the moment, but to date he's been convicted of nothing, or even formally charged with anything. In any case, if he's committed criminal acts, he will suffer the consequences, and Congressional elections are held every two years besides.
posted by raysmj at 11:12 AM on July 13, 2001

The San Francisco Chronicle has a story on the CBS thing, with much more detail than the AP brief.
posted by raysmj at 11:15 AM on July 13, 2001

What is the frequency, Kenneth?

Whatever you think of his politics or his grip on reality, I think we'd mostly agree that he looks pretty good for a man of 70. Hell, I'm barely half his age and I look twice as old.
posted by davidmsc at 11:19 AM on July 13, 2001

"Clavdivs is off his meds today, I fear. Anyway. . ." you see, respect. a reason and a little note why. (very seri-ya know strate phased)
posted by clavdivs at 11:26 AM on July 13, 2001

The only thing we know now is that he had an affair and didn't tell anyone ... In any case, if he's committed criminal acts, he will suffer the consequences.

All true, and newsworthy because of who he is. It is a very questionable disappearance involving a U.S. Congressman. The fact that the CBS Evening News has deliberately ignored a valid news story suggests they are either using the situation as a crass marketing ploy, exposing their political bias more than usual, or both. Either way, it's not very professional.
posted by ljromanoff at 11:37 AM on July 13, 2001

ljr: It does say in the linked San Francisco Chronicle story that CBS evening news is a 30 minute news program, with staff fully aware that they are not producing any one person's sole source of news. I think they should have had one story, at least, even given their ever-decreasing and hard-to-define niche, but they have a point about sensationalism. When I was a reporter in just a town of 50,000 or so, people had to be charged with a crime before they made news in re to serious criminal activity. It's what they teach in j-schools too, what lawyers tell reporters in staff meetings all the time -- be freakin' paranoid. For some reason, that's become uncool at the national level. "Professional" is a relative thing here.

Affairs of public officials make news repeatedly, and did even before Gary Hart, at least in many parts of the country. This was especially when the officials have made much of their purity or honesty, or others' transgressions. (This seems to be true of Condit to a certain degree.) But even if it turns out Condit did nothing criminally wrong, his career is over. More to the point, even if he hadn't lied about an affair to police and the public, his career would've been over.
posted by raysmj at 11:54 AM on July 13, 2001

Frankly, I applaud CBS' decision not to participate in the "let's beat this into a legitimate news story" media circle-wank... She slept with a (married) congressman. He lied about it. She disappeared. So? That's hardly lead-of-the-evening-news caliber stuff.

I saw film footage of the DC Chief of Police on television last night and he was borderline cranky as he barked out, for what must have been the four hundred and thirty second time that day, "She's one of over a hundred missing persons filed with the DC police. Maybe you'd like to hear about those cases, too?" Oddly enough, the CNN spokesmodels didn't take him up on his offer...
posted by m.polo at 12:43 PM on July 13, 2001

Clavdivs -- are you an idiot, or an insensitive prick?


"Clavdivs is off his meds today, I fear. Anyway. . ."

I find myself reading threads simply to see what clavdivs has to say. I like the style and the effort it takes to get it. Like Joyce, thither and dither.

Condit is a slimy politician who has affairs, I could have told you that with one look before all this. And he's a liar too. He's a suspect as much as anyone else she knew. Religious zealots make the best hypocrits. Ever see "Presumed Innocent"?
posted by chrismc at 1:17 PM on July 13, 2001

So what was Condit doing between 6:30 and 7:30 pm on May 1st?
posted by jennak at 1:23 PM on July 13, 2001

hmmmm.
posted by clavdivs at 1:32 PM on July 13, 2001

CBS was doing a good thing of not jumping on a story for the sex angle like all the other media whores.

CBS is happy to sell the sex angle on their morning show. The point here is how Rather and his producer have decided to either use this story to try to sell the "CBS Evening News" as the show that's "above it all" and/or avoid reporting on a scandal involving a member of Congress who belongs to the party Rather is known to raise money for.
posted by ljromanoff at 3:23 PM on July 13, 2001

I really don't think it's a "liberal media bias conspiracy" thing. I think its a bad move by CBS. Their argument may have held a week or so ago where there was really no story but innuendo, but now they look like idiots. A member of congress cheating on his wife and not cooperating with the police is most definitely a story that should be reported.

Also, both parties lack of condemnation is appalling.
posted by owillis at 3:35 PM on July 13, 2001

I really don't think it's a "liberal media bias conspiracy" thing.

No one ever said conspiracy. Besides, I don't necessarily think that Rather & co.'s political views had a lot to do with their ridiculous stance on this, but I do believe it's a factor.

Anyway, my original point was really more about MetaFilter hypocrisy rather than media bias itself.
posted by ljromanoff at 4:14 PM on July 13, 2001

ljr: Want to take a poll as to how many Me-Fi members watch the CBS Evening News on a regular basis? I don't think the percentage will be very high. Probably pretty close to zero, actually.
posted by raysmj at 5:49 PM on July 13, 2001

ljr: Want to take a poll as to how many Me-Fi members watch the CBS Evening News on a regular basis? I don't think the percentage will be very high. Probably pretty close to zero, actually.

You're probably right about that but I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
posted by ljromanoff at 7:55 PM on July 13, 2001

Jee whillikers, LJR, your whole point was that MeFi users would be all over this if Fox News was ignoring it. Raysmj has suggested that the lack of outcry is due more to MeFi users not watching CBS news, and not some silent hypocrisy on the part of the liberal MeFi population.

Well, that suggestion seems so absurd as to not even occur to me. I'm sure almost zero members of MeFi watch Fox News as well. My belief stands that if this were Fox & a Republican instead of CBS & a Democrat, MeFi would have a whole different take on it.
posted by ljromanoff at 7:44 AM on July 14, 2001

I'm sure almost zero members of MeFi watch Fox News as well.

Maybe you should spend a little more time reading MetaFilter and a little less time listening for the sound of black helicopters. The O'Reilly Factor and other Fox shows and hosts have been discussed here numerous times.

Even if none of the liberals here watched the network, which is demonstrably false, there are dozens of messages here posted by fans of Fox News. One of those people should do you a favor and clue you in -- the notion this place is overwhelmingly liberal is disproven every time gun control comes up.
posted by rcade at 6:23 AM on July 15, 2001

Maybe you should spend a little more time reading MetaFilter and a little less time listening for the sound of black helicopters. The O'Reilly Factor and other Fox shows and hosts have been discussed here numerous times.

Which does not prove that anyone talking about them are actually watching them.

One of those people should do you a favor and clue you in -- the notion this place is overwhelmingly liberal is disproven every time gun control comes up.

Well, keep your head in the sand if you like. MetaFilter is overwhelmingly left-leaning. The fact that you could probably easily recite the list of ALL non-liberal posters to MeFi without much trouble should attest to that.
posted by ljromanoff at 3:54 PM on July 15, 2001