Digby: Condit hunter DePaulo's self-serving 'apology' for being wrong and evil

[BurtWorm]

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2009/03/sociopathic-scribes-by-digby-i-wrote.html

Gary Condit was no angel. He committed adultery and didn't rush to tell anyone about it when she went missing. So, Lisa DePaulo and her pals worked themselves up into a frenzy and determined that he was her killer. And they destroyed him. TYo this day, DePaulo, self-appointed protector of adult women everywhere who choose to have affairs with married men, feels perfectly justified in doing it:

Now with the imminent arrest of Ingmar Guandique, Chandra Levy is being remembered once more. The other night on Fox News, Geraldo Rivera had the good sense (or shamelessness) to ask the same question to Bob Levy, Chandra’s still-distraught father that Jeff Greenfield had once asked me: Did he think Gary Condit deserved an apology? Bob stumbled through his answer—“A lot of things were going on at that time. There were certain actions that were suspicious and devious.”—You had to see his expression to know what he was really feeling: screwed my daughter.

In every sense.

And at the end of the day, we still can’t forgive him for that.

What is she, a priest? What possible standing does this person have to be issuing forgiveness to anyone? Her presumptuousness literally knows no bounds.

The man is gulty of having an affair, which destroyed his life, and which had nothing whatsoever to do with the disappearance and murder of Chandra Levy. Gary Condit didn't even break any laws. But DePaulo still insists that he is some sort of sociopath --- and excuses her own disgusting behavior by comparing his "crime" to homicide saying he deserved the twisted obsession in which she and her cohorts drowned themselves that horrid summer. (But then that particular illness had been prevalent in Washington for some years at that point, hadn't it?)
I submit that she is the one with the problem, a big one. And it's a problem that renders her incapable of being a reliable journalist. If she cannot see that wrongly accusing someone of being a murderer requires a serious reevaluation of where she went wrong and a sincere apology for doing it, then she can't be trusted. She obviously has no ethical compass.

This horrible little screed is the most vivid example of everything that's wrong with American journalism I've seen in quite some time --- the adolescent shallowness, the shrill sanctimony, the arrogance with which they wield their power, the sheer immorality of wrongly accusing someone of a heinous crime and feeling absolutely no remorse.

(And aren't lack of remorse and empathy two of the defining characteristics of the sociopath? I'm just asking ...)