City Paper is not for tourists
The reporters discovered that the police investigation was overwhelmed with the white-hot media coverage fueled by the possible involvement of Rep. Gary Condit, a congressman from California.
Alright, whatever, let’s totally do that again! We’re only two chapters in, and I’ve already read skimmed over a bunch of stuff I didn’t find particularly fascinating the first time around. But wait—-what’s this I see? Now the issue’s got its own blog, you say? You didn’t see that in 2001!
It looks like the public’s already weighing in. Let’s go straight to the comments:
Didn’t you douches in the press already decide it was Condit? No real evidence, mind you, you just decided . . . Go with that. You’ll still be douches, but at least you’ll be consistent douches.
From Jason Stenar Clark:
This is an ill-advised use of the Post’s resources. Perhaps you could assign some more folks to the national security beat? I mean, hey, you certainly didn’t get it right the first time. Maybe it’s hard being a journalist — not quite an academic, not quite an entertainer — but with all the arrogance of the former and the cowardice of the latter.
From R B Shea:
A year-long investigation? A 12 part series? Wow. Seven years in the making. Look out Fox, here comes the Post.
The Washington City Paper paid its own tribute to the case earlier this year, officially renaming Rock Creek Park “The Gary Conduit.” Which do you think is more appropriate: Throwaway joke, or 12-part series plus epilogue?