So my sources were right. When that unprecedented question was asked, my jaw dropped open. Just when you think American television journalism cannot go any lower, a trap-door opens and you find yourself falling down into another sewer. The Chung interview was the single most disgusting hour I have ever witnessed on television. Question after question of simply outrageous inquiry into a man’s private life, into affairs that have no relevance whatsoever to any crime, questions that are put out there purely for titillation and money, and nothing else. And in between this obscenity – ads, ads, ads. Chung’s persistent inquiry into the exact sexual nature of Condit’s relationship with Levy was a particular outrage. Does she have no shame? He told us this in so many words, as he told the police in his first formal interview (see “What Lies?” below). This was an extra-legal inquisition based on exactly what such inquisitions are always based on. Condit was required to prove a negative on live television. He was required to prove his innocence against a barrage of questions based on the assumption of guilt. It was a travesty of any minimal American notions of fairness or justice. Even if he murdered Levy with his bare hands, this interview was out of bounds. No-one knows what happened. The man isn’t even a suspect. And those few questions which weren’t merely prurient were based on an implicit allegation of murder for which there is simply not a shred of credible evidence. The teasing segments about an affair with, in Chung’s phrase, “yet another woman,” made me nauseated. And that pompous pontificator, Charles Gibson, pretending to be some sort of reporter. Jeez. This wasn’t journalism. It was prostitution. And Condit wasn’t the whore.
WHAT LIES?: Here’s a classic piece of anti-Condit spin that doesn’t bear scrutiny. James Taranto of OpinionJournal.com writes the following sentence: “Condit doesn’t apologize for, or even acknowledge, lying to police about his relationship with his vanished paramour, Chandra Levy.” Hey, wait a minute. How does Taranto know that Condit lied to the police? That’s a crime. The police themselves have never said as much. No-one has access to the transcripts of the interviews between Condit and the cops. Has Taranto been talking to a psychic? Here’s what we know, taken from an excellent examination by the Daily Howler about a month ago: “Condit’s initial police interview occurred in mid-May. On June 7, the Washington Post published a story about it, citing unnamed police sources. Here’s how the story, by Allan Lengel, began: “Calif. Rep. Gary A. Condit told D.C. police that Chandra Levy has spent the night at his Adams Morgan apartment, according to law enforcement sources.” The headline: “Intern Spent Night, Condit Told Police.” Lengel gave a bit more detail: “The law enforcement sources said that although Condit told police that Levy had spent the night at his apartment, he did not say whether the two were romantically involved. He also did not specify when she had been at his apartment.” By July 7, Lengel and Petula Dvorak, probed further: “Law enforcement sources said that in his first interview, Condit said Levy had spent the night at his apartment in Adams Morgan but stopped short of discussing the relationship. One law enforcement source said that Condit told investigators to read into the relationship what they wished.”” That’s a lie? It seems to me to be an awkward attempt by someone to do all he could to help the cops while squirming under the scrutiny of an adulterous affair. Not pretty but not criminal. Maybe there’s some more information out there I don’t know of that will prove Condit’s deception. Happy if someone else has any better information. But to say on the basis of what we actually know that Condit lied to the cops is simply, er, a lie.
The Dish 