Readers, it’s not like no one has reported the story! An alert reader excitedly sent us the word: Yahoo news of the UK and Ireland has mentioned Judy Bachrach’s report (click here). Bachrach’s report that Chandra wasn’t pregnant—sourced to Chandra’s own mother—still hasn’t been mentioned by any U.S. newspaper, and no one has breathed a word on cable (according to a Lexis search). But who could care about outlets like that when Yahoo/UK cites the fact?

What will happen as the weeks go by? No one on cable will say a word about the debunking of their pregnancy rumor. They’ll simply mention it less and less; eventually, even Nancy Grace will stop. Bachrach’s article will appear in Vanity Fair (December issue), and eventually everyone will come to know that Chandra wasn’t actually preggers. But no one will ever correct the record; apologize for bruiting the rumor so often; or dare to ask Levy lawyer Billy Martin why his "investigators" launched the tale in the first place (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 8/30/01). And no one—no one—will ever ask why the Levys waited to set the record straight. Don’t worry, readers. The little boys and girls who make up your "press corps" are committed to telling the stories they like. Some unfortunate third world nations are ruled by what we call a "kleptocracy." In this country, a similar situation obtains. Our public discourse has been seized by a strange little band; although they come across well on cable TV, they’re born dissemblers, corrupt to the bone.

Don’t be fooled by their charm and Q ratings; your modern "press corps" is deeply dysfunctional. But what they heck! Let’s enjoy a few mordant chuckles at one part of their work this past week.

Our question: What could possibly be the IQ of the average Fox News Channel viewer? On Tuesday night, Anne Marie Smith’s kooky counselor, Jim Robinson, was telling his favorite story. Robinson was appearing on Hannity & Colmes; at one point, Sean Hannity asked the hapless Robinson to describe a famous phone call from Condit. It’s the call where Condit is alleged to have told Smith that he’s in trouble and "may have to disappear for a while:"

In his answer, Robinson referred to Condit’s interview last week with KOVR-TV reporter Jodi Hernandez. Condit told Hernandez that the alleged "may have to disappear" conversation "never occurred."

Here at THE HOWLER, we just shook our heads as Robinson recited his story. Incredibly, Robinson is now on his fourth set of dates as to when this alleged phone call occurred. But on Fox, subhuman hosts just keep pretending there’s nothing wrong with Robby’s recital. Remember—on cable, they’re writing a novel, not news. If you’ve been cast as one of the Noble Accusers, you can emit all the nonsense you want.

Let’s go back over all the dates on which this alleged phone call occurred.

When Anne Marie Smith burst on the scene in July, the dates of the phone call were very, very troubling. On July 2, Smith—making her national network debut—said the phone call had occurred on "approximately May 5th or 6th." Cable pundits ran to interpret this news; it showed Condit’s complicity in Chandra’s disappearance, they said. How else could he have said this to Smith so early? they asked. After all, Condit only learned that Chandra was missing on May 6, when he spoke to the Levys.

But then, the dates began changing. Smith—never failing to note that she kept a diary, with records of all her phone calls—moved the date of the call to "May 11 or 12." Her batty barrister, Robinson, seemed to make it May 12, saying the call had been made on a Friday (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 8/6/01). Cable pundits knew enough not to ask about the change in dates. Indeed, Tim Russert still used "May 5 or 6" on Meet the Press just this past Sunday!

This week, though, the fun really started. Tuesday night, Smith’s loopy lawyer did Hannity & Colmes, producing the "May 17" date (text above). Robinson was now making his third separate claim about when the troubling phone call had happened (all backed up by Smith’s detailed diaries). On Wednesday night, guest host Linda Vester played the new tape on The Edge, and her gang of guest took turns explaining the troubling phone call. But wouldn’t you know it? On Rivera Live, just one hour earlier, Geraldo Rivera had read from an actual document—the complaint which Robinson had just finished filing with the Modesto grand jury. Uh-oh! Turns out that the inattentive attorney said May 9 in his filing. Oops! It’s a date he has used nowhere else:

"The fact of the phone would be easy to establish?" So far—buoyed by Smith’s detailed record-keeping—Robinson has said that the alleged phone call occurred on May 5 or 6, May 11 or 12, May 17, or on May 9. So you’re right, Geraldo—once the slippery solicitor gets into court, he should have no problem establishing those facts!

On cable, of course, this all makes sense. On The Edge, Vester and guests explained the call; all knew not to mention stream of changed dates. On Fox News Channel, this makes good sense. What could possibly be the IQ of people who sit through this nonsense?

Visit our incomparable archives: When Robinson burst upon the scene, he told a story which made absolutely no sense. All over cable, they knew not to notice. See THE DAILY HOWLER, 7/19/01.

Yo! Geraldo! It’s called "Lexis-Nexis:" Perhaps we shouldn’t single out Fox. Let’s talk Geraldo Rivera. Rivera spends an hour, every night, lambasting Condit as a "punk." But we often chuckle at his factual ignorance. Can you say "misfeasance," boys and girls? Last Friday night, he was shaking his fist over something Condit said to Connie Chung:

Amazing, isn’t it? The fact that Chandra was considering going home by train is all over this story’s basic texts. Mrs. Levy repeatedly mentioned the fact in her interviews (dating back to mid-May). The fact that Chandra was checking Amtrak’s website on May 1 was released by the D.C. police in July. Lisa DePaulo mentions the fact in her seminal Talk piece this month. Has Rivera done any work on this case? If he’d done even basic background work, he’d have been well aware of this fact. (Note: Last month, Barbara Olson didn’t know from Amtrak neither. See THE DAILY HOWLER, 7/23/01.)

But why should major pundits waste their time preparing? Quick-witted buddies will always protect them. Later in the program, Rivera jumped on the train again. Watch how Tom Squitieri saved his host, turning Geraldo’s inexcusable ignorance into new proof of Condit’s misconduct:

"That has been in the newspapers," Squitieri said, implying that Condit learned it after Chandra disappeared. "Anybody could have read that," he said. At THE HOWLER, we couldn’t help chuckling when we heard that. It’s certainly true; anybody could have read it, so we couldn’t help wondering why a certain host didn’t. And by the way: when Robinson changes his dates four times, are you surprised now when Rivera doesn’t notice?

Fuller Gainer: On cable, if you’re accusing Condit, you can change your story as much as you like. After his session with Connie Chung, D.C. police chiefs Ramsey and Gainer had a good time slamming Condit around, explaining how little help he’d been to police. On cable, pundits loved their statements. At THE HOWLER, we thought you might want to see what Gainer has said in the past. On July 6, D.C. police interviewed Condit for the third time; Gainer described Condit’s efforts in a press conference held the next day. At that time, the effusive chief went on and on about how helpful Condit had been. CNN aired the press conference live. All exchanges quoted below come from the CNN transcript.

Gainer began with an upbeat overview statement. But forget that; Gainer then took questions from the media, and fleshed out his views in the process:

Gainer explicitly said that Condit had not "obstructed the investigation" at any point. He said it was "unfair" to say that Condit had been uncooperative in Interviews I and II. But that was then, and this is now. Now, police are busily changing their story, and pundits are happy to get the new quotes. That’s not how it works in news. But this isn’t news; your cable "press corps" is writing a novel, and your cable dissemblers are always quite thrilled when accusers improve prior tales.