PRIVACY FOR THE MEDIA BUT NOT FOR ANYONE ELSE

I was struck by something in Josh Marshall’s typically good piece in Salon today. He details a complicated and not-too-interesting nugget in the Condit affair. It involves an ABC News reporter who interviewed Condit the day after Levy’s disappearance at my local coffee shop in Adams Morgan, D.C. There are some discrepancies between the timeline of those days proffered by Condit and what ABC News says it knows because of the timing of the interview. Josh also mentions that other news outlets have alleged that the reporter (unnamed) had an affair with Condit. ABC News insists that their relationship was purely professional – but won’t name the reporter. Why? If she is a reporter with nothing to hide and has relevant information that might help find Chandra Levy, why the sudden squeamishness about privacy? Once again, this gets it the wrong way round. If ABC News is right about their reporter’s relationship with Condit, this is one instance in which there are no real privacy considerations. As long as ABC News says there was no affair, then the reporter has nothing to be afraid of in disclosing her name. In fact, she has a duty to do so. I fear this is another instance of the media attacking others’ privacy while protecting their own. Typical that Salon didn’t have the guts to name her either. Who do they think they are? One rule for the media elite; another for their victims. And which media reporter will raise this question? None – so far. Thank God for me-zines. C’mon, Josh. If you know her name, tell us. Bypass Salon. They’re cowards. Use your own site.