|
|
|
it bad on Chandra
CBS's asinine refusal to run an important story
By Andrew Wallenstein
The timing of last week's ending to "The CBS Evening News" two-month boycott of the Chandra Levy story was telling, to say the least.
The report that broke Dan Rather's silence focused on the "inappropriate emphasis" the FBI felt the Washington, D.C., police were putting on Rep. Gary Condit in the ongoing investigation into Levy's disappearance.
No doubt, CBS News chose the occasion of the "inappropriate emphasis" on Condit because it represented a subtle dig at its media brethren, whose emphasis on this juicy scandal has been all too evident. Which is why CBS's decision to steer clear of the story has kicked up a controversy of its own.
It's almost never a good thing when the media becomes the story, and the network's attempt to shake off Chandra is no exception. All that stands out amid the hoopla is the hypocrisy and snobbery of a once-legendary news operation.
The very substance of the report concerning "inappropriate emphasis" points to the brinkmanship of CBS executives. Were the Washington police wrong for putting Condit on their list of suspects? Of course not.
And neither is any media outlet that sniffed around Condit, who remains a potential suspect or informant. Any news organization that didn't follow suit--that's you, CBS--simply missed the boat.
"Evening News" honchos Rather and Jim Murphy made a conscientious objection to reporting the Levy case because its tawdry mix of sex and politics was all too reminiscent of feeding frenzies past, especially Clinton vs. Lewinsky. Claiming that its competitors' coverage was running on the fumes of rumor and innuendo, they sat on their hands.
In a Washington Post interview, Murphy even deemed the press on the story "nauseating."
Attention Mr. Murphy: If providing information on a story that the public is clearly interested in is "nauseating," you're in the wrong business. Take up badminton if you don't want to get your hands dirty.
Rather and Murphy are absolutely right to feel that the Levy story is being overplayed. But their solution to the problem was asinine.
Instead of restricting their reporting to substantial facts, they executed the corporate equivalent of a two-year-old's tantrum finale: holding your breath until you turn blue.
Like a self-asphyxiating toddler, CBS News did what it did for attention, or more to the point, viewers. Leaving out Levy was a calculated marketing ploy to portray CBS News as a high-minded purveyor of so-called "serious" news, to distinguish Rather from the rest of his talking-head competitors.
The strategy is based on the faulty assumption that there's overwhelming public pent-up rage at the merciless media.
Though it's easy to find people who hate what news has become, that segment of the population is nothing compared to the number of folks who want to know what happened to Chandra Levy. Now.
Is Tom Brokaw or Peter Jennings pandering to empty curiosity?
That's a simplistic viewpoint any way you slice it. What few facts we have are that an intern has vanished and that a politician has admitted to having an affair with her. That doesn't mean Condit is guilty, but the press should join the police in leaving no stone unturned.
If there is a silver lining to this mushroom cloud, consider the ratings"CBS Evening News" registered last week: down 2 percent, still trailing both NBC and ABC. Looks like a transparent ratings stunt failed.
July 23, 2001 © 2001 Media Life
-Andrew Wallenstein is the television critic for Media Life.
Send to a
Friend| Printer-Friendly Version
Cover Page | Contact
Us
