Is the Washington Post series "Who Killed Chandra Levy?" sensationalism and exploitation, or solid journalism? Put another way, can there be real news value in the story of a single unsolved murder? Or is it transparently cheesy to select for such prominent treatment the story of a pretty, young victim involved in an illicit affair with a married congressman, in a case that was full of media hype until it was forgotten post-9/11? That's the debate raging on the message board attached to the series' reporters' notebook. Three of 13 parts of this serial have been published so far, and several readers have posted comments questioning the motives of the Post and its reporters (Sari Horwitz, Scott Higham, and Sylvia Moreno). A sampling:
This feels like an episode of the Wire where the reporters chase a nonstory in search of a Pulitzer while the real news in the city goes unreported. I guess the corporate puppet masters wanted to break last year's record. You cannot justify this amount of resources on the death of one person, under the guise that you're looking at the investigation. A broader examination of the high number of unsolved murders in the city or region, or the recent rise in murders would have made more sense. I'm glad that the reporters had an opportunity to indulge their personal interests but you have done a disservice to the residents of this region.Posted by: Tina | July 14, 2008 8:28 AM Young,not too attractive, Jewish girl with Ciao suitcases, Dupont circle address and penchant for married men disappears and is found murdered. Is it worthy of this much attention? May involve a congressman! Nothing really unusual when considering those people. Please try journalism as a vehicle for freedom of the press rather than Murdoch-like forays into sensationalism.Posted by: bona fide | July 13, 2008 3:44 PM I look to the Washington Post for current vital news coverage. Although an interesting read, making this story front page on Sunday was a tacky ploy to sell papers. Leave sensationalism and mystery to the "rags".Posted by: Linda S. | July 14, 2008 10:57 AM
Put aside the racism of the comment by "bona fide" (and ignore much of the other rubbish on the message board, so typical of the wisdom of the crowd on news sites). And what you have here are genuine objections to the notion that one murder deserves so much more attention than any other. And genuine skepticism that the Post's rationale for revisiting the case -- examining the mistakes of investigators -- is anything other than a cover for sexploitation. I disagree with those readers, and I'm enjoying the serial so far. By looking back at the case, the Post team aims to show "how many of the details that were originally reported about this case were wrong," and why police and media bumbling and bias may have helped the real murderer escape justice. I like how the Post is telling the story, in easily digestible two-take installments rather than in our typical mass-of-gray copy blobs that scream Important Project. As the story unfolds, I have the natural reaction when one is following a serial: I can't wait for the next part. More to my point, I consider the questions explored by the series to be newsworthy and deserving of such attention. We need to know if our original suspicions of Rep. Gary Condit were unfair and wrong. We need to know if a major metropolitan police department screwed up an important case -- and how such screwups occur. By definition, news is selective: It's what is new and unusual. And, when told in story form by professional reporters and writers, it should be engaging and gripping and dramatic and, yes, sensational (in the best sense of the word).
