Where I Stand—Brian Greenspun: Media out of bounds

Tuesday, July 10, 2001 | 9:03 a.m.

Brian Greenspun is editor of the Las Vegas Sun.

THE LAWYER made a lot of sense. Oh, oh!

The disappearance of former Washington intern Chandra Levy is perplexing and very sad. I dare say, though, that it is a story being lived and relived by families across this country on a daily basis. Young people keep disappearing, and some are met with foul play.

What makes the Levy story front page on every newspaper in the country, of course, is not the tragedy of the disappearance and the inability, as yet, of the police to find her. If that were the case, the Levy story, unfortunately, would be just like thousands of others.

No, this story gets its legs from the fact that it is Washington, there is sex and there is a congressman who, until recently, led the public to believe that he and Chandra were just good friends. It is those differences that make this a story which should tell us far more about ourselves than it does about the people involved.

I listened to Congressman Gary Condit's lawyer on the talk shows Sunday. You may recognize the name Abbe Lowell from his involvement in another Washington case involving sex, an intern and political intrigue at the highest levels of the White House.

It is this case, though, that has Lowell doing double duty in trying to convince the public that his client has done nothing wrong and, in fact, almost everything right.

Regardless of the tactics employed by Wolf Blitzer, who is no shrinking violet when it comes to pressing for an answer, he got nowhere with the seasoned Washington lawyer, who stuck to his script. His message was simple: Gary Condit has cooperated fully with the Metropolitan Police in all matters that relate to the disappearance of Levy. If you have any doubt about that, Lowell said, talk to the police, who will confirm the cooperation and also tell the world, as they already have, that Condit is not a suspect.

So here's the dilemma. I am like most people. Curious. But how far is my curiosity allowed to go in reaching into the private lives of other people, whether or not they are public servants or private people yearning to be left alone? Because the answer to that question should proscribe the limits of the media, who are merely acting on behalf of the public.

If you believe Lowell, Condit owes a duty to the police to answer fully and fairly any and all questions put to him and to satisfy all reasonable requests for information, including their desire to search his apartment.

In truth, Lowell got it wrong because no citizen owes a duty to any police agency if he thinks what he does or says may tend to incriminate him. Lowell, of course, knows that, so what he was saying to Blitzer was that his client cooperated fully and without concern for any type of self-incrimination. Sounds like a lawyer for an innocent man.

What Lowell also said --and here's where I find myself agreeing with the lawyer over the media guys -- is that Condit's duty ends with the police. It does not extend to the media.

That's quite a blow to those of us who believe we are entitled to all the information all of the time. But in this case, I think Lowell is right. And even though I understand the tactics of the family, which is to drive Condit or any other lead to distraction using the media, there must be some limits to how far we go in turning other people's lives upside down.

Remember, the only thing we may know about Condit is that he had an affair, a situation that he would normally want to keep from public or family scrutiny. Beyond that, all we know is that the police are saying he is not a suspect.

Is it fair to drag him and his family over the hot coals of public scrutiny when he is not a suspect? There is sex and politics in this story, to be sure, but there are also real people who may not deserve to be branded as criminals. Assuming Condit never becomes a suspect, there will be plenty of time for the voters in his district to discuss in a very public way the nature of his own failings as they relate to Chandra and, perhaps, others.

Right now, it seems a better use of the media's time to focus on the big question: where is Chandra and what are the authorities doing to find her.