Identity 101 (Feature) On the Records (in National News) Construction on Chinatown Campus Halted (in Bay Area News) Weiiiiiii... China's Cell Phone Market Ready to Explode (in Business) Emil Amok: The Connie-Condit Affair (in Opinion) Mr. Ogawa - The Trickster Hero (in Sports) A Giant Step for Womankind (in A&E)

The Connie-Condit Affair

Years ago, I did the unspeakable. I challenged an icon who had come to be coronated.

The specific event was the Asian American Journalists Convention a few years back in Los Angeles.

The icon in question was Connie Chung, the pre-eminent Asian American journalist who at the time rarely took the time to dignify the group, let alone form any connection to an Asian American community.

Connie, in fact, had snubbed AAJA many times before — until the Los Angeles convention, when I suppose it was convenient to come out west and do a star turn.

So there was Connie, finally. At a luncheon she was introduced, and you’d have thought Madonna had entered the room. Not the singer. The real Madonna. Actually the fan/journalists of the group, the Connie Wannabes treated her as both. Star/Saint, Asian American Journalism hero and hormonal role model.

For her darling mignons, Chung had a polite speech that was aired on C-SPAN. But the amok moment came when yours truly asked the question that was on everyone’s mind.

“Hey, Connie,” I recall asking. “Where have you been all this time?”

In other words, why had she gone so totally mainstream and dissed her roots all those years, even though we know she was one of the early affirmative action hires in broadcasting.

Connie didn’t have to answer really. I recall a perfunctory response, but when I pressed, the emcee, a New York local fellow, became her protector and PR guy, and cut off my mic. I was practically shouted down, quite a sight in a journalism convention where you’d think free speech would reign. But free speech gave in to decorum, or rather obsequiousness — otherwise known as “kissing chung.”

Maybe that’s why I always have a soft spot in my heart for AAJA.

When I try to forget, they don’t let me.

And then of course, there are those who say, “Aren’t you the guy who asked Connie Chung the hard questionÇ in LA?”

Yes. And that’s why it all came back to me this week as I was watching our ranking Asian American TV NEWS personality’s attempt to grill Gary Condit on ABC.

Actually, it was more like a stir fry than a grill. She definitely tried to stir things up.

But I think she blew it.

As we all know by now, partially because he said it over and over, Condit is “not a perfect man.”

As I was watching Connie do her thing. It all became clear to me.

Gary Condit hasn’t been accused of any crime. But so far, he has been convicted in the court of public opinion — for giving a bad interview to Connie Chung.

Only in a handful of backward states is giving a bad interview to Connie Chung a capital offense.

And what didn’t he do for Connie? He didn’t allow her to be his confessor. He wouldn’t say he had affair. Even though there was said to be an admission to police, Chung and the public wanted to see it come out of his mouth in living color.

He wouldn’t do it.

If Condit gave a bad interview, part of the blame has to go to his dance partner. If the name of the game is to elicit information, Chung’s line of questioning turned it all into a strange, awkward spotlight dance.

Chung wanted to tango, hard. Condit wanted to box step, lightly.

Chung was so direct, she clearly dispensed with the foreplay and went right for it. In the first minute, what’s left after “Did you kill Chandra Levy?”

After a string of “No” answers, the line of questioning made it simple for Condit to slip into “deposition” mode. No longer television news, it became a legal proceeding. She put him on the defensive, and it sent him into “talking point” hell, the political version of “voice mail” hell.

Listen carefully, our menu options have not changed.

Did he say or do anything that caused her to drop out of sight? “I never had a cross word.”

Did they have a sexual relationship? “I’ve been married for 34 years, and uh, I’ve not been a perfect man, and I’ve made my share of mistakes. But um, out of respect for my family, and out of a specific request from the Levy family, I think it’s best not to get into those details uh, about Chandra Levy.”

To hear the menu options again, press the pound key. And that’s basically your interview.

There was no compassion to elicit the answers anyone wanted. Now what if Chung had asked him something slightly disarming. Showed a little charm. Asked him what he saw in Chandra, what Chandra saw in him. Then maybe we’d see a frank, penitent, even humbled Condit. A forthcoming Condit. Instead, we got the totally unsympathetic serial adulterer. A worthy person to hang the crime on, except for one thing.

He’s a congressman. The ante is a tad higher when accusations are thrown about.

And this is where we must speak the unspeakable: that Condit is being used by the Levys.

Everyone knows that missing persons cases get short shrift. When they’re fresh, a case gets some attention. But then they go cold fast. Real fast. With a Condit connection, this case has lasted more than three months. There was even an unprecedented search of D.C.’s Rock Creek Park. So who could blame the Levys for using Condit? Anything to find a loved one is fair play.

It’s just that at some point, Condit could unfairly lose a career. And for what? The coincidence of choosing to have an affair with a woman who disappeared? Was he that good? Or bad?

Had Condit been candid from the start, he’d be shamed for adultery, but that’s all. Lord knows, there are people in Congress who’ve done far worse. Like other public figures, Marv Albert, Pee Wee Herman, Condit would have come back. America believes in redemption — over time.

But now Condit’s failure to be candid has practically become synonymous in some people’s eyes with being responsible for the disappearance of Chandra Levy.

Once again, at least being in Congress gives him a little slack. If he were an average Joe Stud Adulterer, with no connection to our democratic ruling class, or heaven forbid, say he was an ethnic minority, I have a bad feeling that we’d have a suspect behind bars in no time. Perhaps wrongly, but then again we do kill innocent people on death row all the time.

So Condit’s curse and shield is to be a congressman. But for how long?

Connie’s interview certainly didn’t get much information, but she sure made him look bad. She also made herself and journalism look bad in the process. If Condit is run out of town unfairly, then you can point to Connie’s interview as the breaking point.

E-mail: emil@amok.com