despite, obviously, everyone's wanting the poor woman's family to get some peace and justice, those things should not come to the detriment of a properly informed citizenry.  There is considerable "anniversary" (of fill-in-the-blank) tragedies in many papers.  And it is one more way to refrain from telling, for example, what's happening now.  It's another way to deny readers the information they need.

I think the Levy case is one more way to re-inject the story which destroyed one (Democratic)politician.  WAPO, and investigators may have ultimately clarified the fact that the politician didn't do it.  But not until a life-altering false accusation stood for a very long time.  Bringing it up again before an election (I think the 10 yr thing is a pretext), is another way to remind about the overlap into politics on the personal, not criminal, matter.  

When the NYT ran that feeble attempt to expose the Vicki Iseman story, it focused on the salacious, for which the evidence was "only" three witnesses.  But the real scandal was that friend-lobbyist Iseman brought business before the his Senate committee and McCain's conflicted relationship with her--whatever it was. Even if the relationship wasn't intimate, McCain clearly paid additional attention to this one lobbyist.

When, McCain said he did nothing wrong, and had no personal relationship with Iseman, the NYT took his word for it and backed down from  even the more important portion of the story (business which lobbyist Iseman brought to the Senate committee).  Maybe he didn't.  But the rest of the media, after mentioning the NYT story once, also backed down, just kept running stuff like this "investigation."  What if they had taken a closer look?

Imagine if the media had backed down after falsely claiming Gore lied and being confronted with the evidence that he did not.  Imagine if every time the lying, scheming Bush- (and now McCain) buddies, the "SBVT," instead of promotion,were refuted every time they put their lying faces on TV.  BTW, The media does not have to sell ad time to air material that is known to be false.  Why, TV media outlets turn down some legitimate, true  ads from Democratic-leaning groups because the paper doesn't want to upset The Decider.  Imagine if ANY Democrat got such treatment.

I should have said 7 years.

When I glanced at the front page section of the WaPo yesterday, I rifled through the rest of the paper, because I thought that the real front page section was missing. The page was overwhelmingly dominated by the Chandra Levy story, and the format looked like that of a Fleet Street or supermarket tabloid.

Has Rupert Murdoch secretly bought the WaPo?

With plenty issues of importance to cover--war crimes, a resurgent Taliban, unlawful surveillance, rampant corruption, a looting class run amok, an economy in meltdown, federal bailouts of assorted looting class Ponzi schemes from hedge funds to mortgage-backed derivatives, threats to attack Iran and drive oil up to $250 or $300 a barrel, genocide in Africa, etc., etc.--the WaPo devotes resources to a 12-part front page series on Chandra Levy?

Hey, look at this shiny Chandra Levy distraction so you don't have to worry your little heads with any of that other stuff. We'll all be happier that way.

The WaPo used to be a real national newspaper of record with significant ongoing investigations. No longer.

A 12-part series (!!!) on a 7-year-old unsolved murder?  I think it's time for everyone to cancel their subscription to the Washington Post, because the paper has completely jumped the shark.

However, I don't think I can say I flat out agree with the sentiment (McCaffrey's) of "Does anyone care about the Chandra Levy case?"  I'm sure her father and mother do.  And in an abstract way as someone who has lived in that part of town I'd kind of like to know that if I'd gone missing that the local police wouldn't entirely screw up the investigation--which I gather is one major thrust of the story, having only read a few paragraphs worth.  As someone who formerly read the Post for his local news instead of just a digest of what's going on with the government, though, I can understand why people outside the beltway would see this as a waste of precious column-inches.  I'm sure the WaPo readers in Montgomery County MD feel the same way everytime they read another article about the VA General Assembly failing to pass a transportation plan.

of someone who's died or been murdered cares about that person. Does that justify a 12-part front-page Washington Post series?    

in the district every day. How many get a 12-part front page Washington Post series?  How many even get a small mention in the Metro section, for that matter?

I've already agreed that it's surprising to see a series like this and to see it in the Post.  Like I said, I was surprised this was a front page story for a single day, and I'm curious as to why it deserves so much coverage.  But I've previously read the Post for local news as well as national news and so I actually do pay attention to a lot of the homicide coverage.  Some of it is extensive--I recall to mind immediately the stories about the shootings in the Trinidad area of Northeast, as well as an emerging trend in some homicides that were "self-defense" related in theory but reflected a drastic ratcheting-up (fights quickly turning into shootings, I think in the eastern part of town and more in Prince George).  Another story from the WaPo that leaps immediately to mind is Forward Together PAC vounteer Alan Senitt's tragic killing.  Truth be told, however, most of the crime here is not terribly complicated and it's also not terribly surprising, so it's not as though a lot of it takes a long time to detail and report.

By the way, it's a triffling matter but on the topic of "people being murdered in the District every day," that hasn't been true since 1994.  Around 200 people are murdered in Washington DC every year.  Still too many for my tastes, but it still doesn't break down to one per day.  I don't want people getting the completely wrong impression about crime in our nation's capital. ;-)

The Chandra Levy case was big news when it happened for a few reasons, not the least of which was the fact that the media treats the murder of young white women quite differently than it does the murder of minorities, but also because of her relationship with Condit.

So an article, even a three-part series, could perhaps be justified just on the basis of, rightly or wrongly, this was big news at one time.

But a 12-part series based on a year's investigation? Seriously, unless there is some new shocking revelation with significant reverberations beyond this specific case yet to come out,  the editors who green-lighted this thing exercised poor editorial judgment, IMHO.

writes about this next week. She has to be getting flooded with complaints about her paper doing its best imitation of Murdock's NY Post.

Must be the new Managing Editor?  

Murder mysteries sell $$$ (especially when they involve congressional interns having affairs with Congressmen).

They're more likely to sells more papers running a 12 part series on this than on global warming so they run a series on this.

The post has a new editor I have heard, the guy who sold the WSJ to Murdoch. Is the Post next?

First, Len Downie is still the editor. He will be stepping down in September.

Second, his replacement will be Marcus Brauchli, who became managing editor of the WSJ after Murdoch acquired Dow Jones. Brauchli was a long-time Dow Joneser who was forced out by Murdoch.

Finally, Brauchli did not sell the WSJ to Murdoch. He did not own it (although he probably made a bundle off the sale).Dow Jones was a public company. The biggest shareholders were the Bancroft family (who controlled a majority of voting shares, although not a majority of ownership), the descendants of Dow Jones Clarence Barron, who bought DJ in 1903.

I do think that they have been reducing staff for a while so maybe this is a kind of "make news" to make up for the fact that they don't have the staff for real stories.

The Post devoted a significant amount of resources toward producing a 12-part series (they spent a year on it) that should have been devoted to something more interesting and relevant.

I've been meeting with people from a new-ish group called Black and Missing, and they report that ten's of thousands of people of color are (and remain) missing with little or no media coverage.  Their mission is to let the public know about these missing people.

The Post would do a much better public service exposing the plights of these missing people instead of re-hashing a seven-year old case (though I obviously feel sorry for the Levy family).

Like terrorism - President Clinton made it clear to Bush that this was a top issue.  Yet, it fell off the radar.

Like visa overstays - 17 of the 19 terrorists overstayed their visas.  Had we been tracking this, perhaps someone could have connected the dots.

Like regulation of banks and lenders.  Look where we are now.

I don't think we could possibly see another administration this incompatent.  It just doesn't seem possible.  No matter your views on how to solve these issues, nothing was accomplished during this administration.  Nothing.

9/11
Iraq
Katrina
Illegal immigration
Offshoring
Lending Crises
Housing Bust
Banking Crises
Falling Dollar
Rising trade deficit
Oil/Energy crises
Bear Market
Budget deficit
Depression

Do you see what is occuring here?  Our economy is falling apart one domino at a time.  Mismanagement of trade, energy, lending, banking, and government spending are sending our country straight down the tubes.  They can't seem to get anything right.

The one thing Democrats and Republicans seem to agree on is that our government isn't doing their job.

Wow, reading over your list, relawson, it looks like you were reciting the plagues from the Bible. I will just keep my fingers crossed hoping that no frogs will fall from the sky yet. On the other hand, plenty of things can happen from now until Bush leaves office.

Every economic indicator backs up all of this, at least the things on the list that can be measured that way.

Our budget deficit - went up: http://www.federalbudget.com/.  On this one, the President can act like a leader.  It is up to Congress to act.  Neither of the two occured.

Trade deficit - continues to climb, especially with China: http://www.census.gov/foreign-...

A large portion of our trade deficit is because of OIL.  We produce just 1/4 of what we consume.  And, even though we are just 4% of the world's population we consume 25% of the oil.  I wouldn't expect an oil man like Bush to give a rats ass.  As President, that is his job - to steer us clear of this crises.  As someone with industry experience he of all people knows what a mess we are in.

Katrina.  "Job well done Brownie".  Nuff said.

Dow, down around 11,000 from a high near 14,000.  This is cyclical, but most of this is because of uncertainty in lending, banking, energy, etc.

Housing: Even though mathematically the subprime scandal is just a fraction of all loans, that triggered a much wider reaction.

Falling dollar: all of the above conditions result in our dollar to slide.  We are viewed as a weakened nation because of our massive debt - both trade and budget.  That means the value of our currency drops.  The EU use to be 80 cents to the dollar.  Now it is $1.50 to the dollar.

This is all rather simple math.  We are in trouble.  We need leadership, not rhetoric.  I think Scott Mclellan had it right - the Oval office is in full time campaign mode.  That means detached from reality.

 didn't make myself clear. I agree with you: Bush is a major failure that destroyed our nation. What I was trying to say that all what is left to happen under is to have locust and frogs raining. I never meant to say that you were using scare tactics.

It would be actually hard for enemies of Bush to come up with horrible things to attribute to him. Every time one believes we have seen the worst of him, he manages to surprise us.

Yeah, I didn't think you disagreed.  I just didn't want to appear alarmist.

It's going to be tough to turn this around.