SanFranGate

Statement of Gary Condit

Sunday, August 12, 2001

(08-12) 17:59 PDT MODESTO, Calif. (AP) --

The following is the full statement given by Rep. Gary Condit on Sunday:

"It is terribly unfair and disappointing that the Bee would have come to any decision about me without first allowing the investigation to continue and hearing what I have to say. My thirty years in public service should have earned me that much consideration. [OG: Not when you've waited 3-1/2 months already, Condit.]

"The Bee's editorial, like the articles it ran and later had to correct with false accusations about me, is another example of it following the media frenzy in this case rather than leading, by providing its readers with the truth. [OG: The guy can't even craft a coherent sentence.]

"The Bee's conclusion that my refusal to publicly disclose details of this case is a violation of the public trust is an unfortunate misunderstanding of the difference between my cooperation with the police and my unwillingness to give in to media demands that I immediately bear all parts of my and my family's private life. [OG: "Bear"? He means "bare," of course. Freudian slip?]

"The Bee's taking one line of a statement from the D.C. police out of context will not change the fact that I have provided information to those who actually might be able to find Chandra Levy as opposed to those in the media who do not have that responsibility.

"Finally, it is sad that the Bee did not appreciate my desire to talk and spend some time with my wife and children before I sat down for any public interview. [OG: So he admits he hasn't discussed it with them for 3-1/2 months, either.]

"Nevertheless, I am hopeful that my neighbors and constituents will be more understanding of the complexities of this case and will be more respectful of the process. I can only hope that they will judge me on my entire record, and that they will wait their judgment until they have heard what I have to say, which I plan to do very soon.

"In return, as I always have done, I will rely on and live by the opinion and decision of those who I have been honored and privileged to serve."

[OG's Recommendation: Remedial writing course.]

-- Anonymous, August 12, 2001

Answers

This was Druge's feature last night. As far as it not being the media's "responsibility", the police may be dependent on leads that are generated by stories with more detail than not. That comment as much as any makes me want to see him hang politically.

OG, I don't think he'll have time for remedial writing until he's resigned.

-- Anonymous, August 13, 2001

From Lucianne:

Can You Hear Me, Can You Hear Me, Can You . . . . Poor Gary Condit. He really, really wants to talk to us and begs us all to please wait until he's ready. In an example of victimhood taken to its lunatic edge, Gary Condit has issued a statement to the AP castigating his hometown paper, The Modesto Bee, for calling for his resignation. The serial adulterer asks his neighbors and constituents to be "respectful of the process" and not judge him until they have heard what he has to say. So? We are waiting? So are the Levys. The man is giving chutzpah a bad name.

-- Anonymous, August 13, 2001

I would think his staff would proof-read his statements...

-- Anonymous, August 13, 2001

I heard that there was a story on the tv news with film showing Chandra using her credit card after the day she was reported missing. Or something like that.

Anyone catch that? I realize it could have been an imposter, but I hadn't heard about this until today.

-- Anonymous, August 13, 2001

Jewish World Review August 13, 2001 / 24 Menachem-Av, 5761

Jonah Goldberg

Condit story is real news, not just ratings hype

http://www.jewishworldreview.com -- "GARY CONDIT! Come out with your pants up!"

That's what a protester was yelling into a megaphone outside Gary Condit's district office the other day. Personally, I think this is hilarious. Still, I can understand why some journalists more in need of a high-fiber diet might sigh at yet another example of what a spectacle the Condit story has become.

I have some advice for the editors and executive producers out there. To paraphrase Margaret Thatcher's statement to the first President Bush after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, "Don't go wobbly on me now."

I despise journalistic cliches, and I'm none too fond of the journalists who cling to them. Whenever I hear Very Serious Journalists talking about how they are fast at work on "the first draft of history," my eyes roll so far back I can see my frontal lobe.

Still, all cliches have some merit, otherwise they'd never have become cliches in the first place. And the mother of all journalistic cliches is the hunch.

Indeed, the mythology of the Great Journalist is deeply bound up with the hunch. Great Journalists "go with" them. They "roll up their sleeves" to work on them. They "sniff out leads," "dig up dirt" and "follow the money" out of loyalty to them.

Pretty much every tale of a great journalist - from Edward R. Murrow to Woodward and Bernstein - involves someone indulging his "gut instincts" and "following his inner" X, Y and Z because a hunch told him to.

Now, if the Gary Condit story doesn't tingle your inner X, Y or Z, then you don't deserve to be a journalist.

In the Condit case, we have a congressman who has refused to say a word publicly about the disappearance of a woman he was having an affair with. He has claimed he won't discuss the case because he wants to protect his family, even though the Condit media frenzy was caused precisely because he wouldn't discuss the case.

There's more of course, that we're all familiar with. Consider these disparate facts:

Chandra Levy's disappearance is completely consistent with abduction by someone she knew. She left her wallet, credit cards, etc. behind. Meanwhile, Condit insisted that Chandra never carry ID when they went out.

Just prior to the search of his apartment, Condit drove to Virginia and threw away evidence of another illicit relationship.

Condit allegedly encouraged a lover to sign a false affidavit.

Neighbors heard a woman's scream prior to Chandra's disappearance. Chandra's computer might have been searched.

Condit has a sketchy brother, a relationship with the Hell's Angels and, worst of all, funny hair.

Yes, yes, there's no definitive proof that Condit had anything to do with Chandra Levy's disappearance. We all know the Dan Rather position of taking the higher ground. But all ongoing news stories lack conclusive proof right up until the point they don't. Then, the story's over.

Watergate looked like it was going nowhere for months on end. It was largely because the known facts didn't jibe with the public explanations, or lack thereof, that The Washington Post stuck with the story during the dead months (though we shouldn't completely discount the importance of the media's irrational Nixon hatred).

Currently, there are no Condit-free explanations for Chandra's disappearance that are more plausible than the ones positing some nefarious activity on Condit's part. If a complete stranger nabbed her, we'd have to dismiss all sorts of funny-smelling coincidences and answer the question of Condit's continued silence.

If it was suicide, where's the body? If she's in hiding, why are her parents being put through this hell? Where can she hide with no money or credit cards?

Again, this doesn't mean the congressman is guilty of foul play. But the evidence to date more than exceeds the minimal requirements for a good hunch. Indeed, this is the only noble explanation for why so many news organizations jumped all over the story.

One need not defend every nanosecond of the round-the-clock coverage to defend this as a legitimate story. The hype may have been ratings-driven, but that doesn't mean the story is just about ratings. And, remember, a hunch isn't wrong just because many people have it.

Now that the D.C. police are winding down their investigation and the story looks stuck in the summer mud, the question is whether enough good investigative journalists will stick to their hunches.

In 1995, Jim Warren, the Chicago Tribune's Washington bureau chief, gave the commencement address to the Columbia University Journalism School. He lamented to the students that "instead of relying on gut instincts, many editors may now fall back on focus group research: asking consumers what they want."

Well, now that the Condit ratings appear to be dropping, we'll learn which editors were relying on gut instincts and which ones went with the focus groups.

-- Anonymous, August 13, 2001