News Media Knew of Foley E-mails A Year Ago

[Nbadan]

WASHINGTON, Oct. 2— At least two news organizations were tipped off to e-mail messages sent by Representative Mark Foley long before the story of his sexually explicit remarks to teenage pages broke last week and forced him to resign.

The St. Petersburg Times and The Miami Herald received copies of an e-mail exchange between Mr. Foley, Republican of Florida, and a teenager, but neither paper gathered enough solid material to publish a story, according to statements by the papers’ editors.

It was not until the exchanges were published online last week, first by an anonymous blogger, then on the ABC News Web site, that the story gained momentum and grew more damaging as other teenagers came forward.

The trickle of information about Mr. Foley’s messages, first made known to the news media almost a year ago, has raised questions not only for Congressional officials but also for news organizations about how to handle anonymous sources making explosive accusations in an election year.

NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/03/washington/03media.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)

FAUX News knew too...


Florida newspapers - who were leaked copies of the e-mail with the Louisiana boy last year - defended their decision not to run stories. Both The St. Petersburg Times and The Miami Herald were given copies of the e-mail, as were other news organizations, including Fox News.

"Our decision at the time was ... that because the language was not sexually explicit and was subject to interpretation, from innocuous to 'sick,' as the page characterized it, to be cautious," said Tom Fiedler, executive editor of the Herald. "Given the potentially devastating impact that a false suggestion of pedophilia could have on anyone, not to mention a congressman known to be gay, and lacking any corroborating information, we chose not to do a story."

Macon (http://www.macon.com/mld/macon/news/politics/15663208.htm)


It was not until the exchanges were published online last week, first by an anonymous blogger, then on the ABC News Web site, that the story gained momentum and grew more damaging as other teenagers came forward.

Look for the wing-nut media to go after the blogger.

[JoeChalupa]

E.D. on FoxNews is saying that ABC knew about it and waited for the right time to release it to shock the elections. Republicans will keep the House and Senate.

[Ocotillo]

There are too many house races for me to go over individually but I will touch on some of the Senate:

Republican seats that are vunerable:

Montana: Jon Tester will beat the scandal plagued Conrad Burns.

Rhode Island: Moderate Lincoln Chafee will fall to Shelden Whitehouse.

Ohio: A tight race but the Republican party was barely above child molesters popularity-wise in the state, was. Brown beats incumbent DeWinne

Pennsylvania: Certified loon Santorum is ran out of the state on a rail, oh yeah, he left a long time ago. Casey wins.

Missouri: A close race that could go either way. Look for McCaskill to nose out Talent in a sweep night for the Dems.

Virginia: This race had no business being competitive. That was before Allen let his sheets show. Webb wins.

Tennessee: This race should not be competitive either. Face it an African-American Democrat having a shot in the south? Corker is bogged down with his own scandal and all the anti-Republican news makes this more competitive than it should ever have been. Ford wins?

Democratic seats that are vunerable:

Michigan: Stabenow keeps her seat. She is polling above 50% for weeks now.

Washington: Cantwell was struggling but she is putting distance between herself and her opponent now. Cantwell wins.

Maryland: Steele plays the race card and loses. Cardin keeps the seat that Sarbanes is retiring from.

New Jersey: Menendez is the most vunerable Democratic incumbent. There are scandals with aides but he himself has not been directly implicated. Kean has his father's name. A blue state that should vote for the Dem but this rates a toss up.

If the Dems hold ground with their vunerable seats and pick up 6 of the 7 competitive Republican seats, they take the Senate unless Judas Lieberman wins and throws in with the GOP.

[Nbadan]

E.D. on FoxNews is saying that ABC knew about it and waited for the right time to release it to shock the elections. Republicans will keep the House and Senate.

I really doubt it. ABC showed it true colors with it's 'Path to Conservative victory' docu-drama. ABC News is almost unbearable to watch, for the last week they have tried to glossy over bad news for wingnuts like the Woodward book and the Foley-page-boy scandal with it's usual fair of tabloid-quality news stories.

[Nbadan]

If the Dems hold ground with their vunerable seats and pick up 6 of the 7 competitive Republican seats, they take the Senate unless Judas Lieberman wins and throws in with the GOP

Wouldn't that be ironic? Sure explains why Republicans have been stumping for Liebermann and the Demos have guaranteed him a 'senior position' if his victory helps them take the Senate. Politicians are whores and as we are finding, so are both major political parties.

[Ocotillo]

I really doubt it. ABC showed it true colors with it's 'Path to Conservative victory' docu-drama. ABC News is almost unbearable to watch, for the last week they have tried to glossy over bad news for wingnuts like the Woodward book and the Foley-page-boy scandal with it's usual fair of tabloid-quality news stories.

I can see where you would think there is a right wing slant with ABC but Brian Ross is a very good investigative reporter. The three network news shows have lost there way and replaced journalism with shlock and stenography for the most part. In their defense, it is really difficult to do a Frontline type of report with the time contraints they have and worrying about the ratings.

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

Can anybody here seriously say that any of the newspapers in question wouldn't have been slammed if they had published this report when they knew about it with an anonymous source?

[Nbadan]

I can see where you would think there is a right wing slant with ABC but Brian Ross is a very good investigative reporter. The three network news shows have lost there way and replaced journalism with shlock and stenography for the most part. In their defense, it is really difficult to do a Frontline type of report with the time contraints they have and worrying about the ratings.

Ratings come from doing investigative reporting, not the other way around and if you haven't noticed there hasn't been much investigative reporting going on at ABC or any of the other M$M news networks. When Demos were in office viewers couldn't get enough political corruption stories, but now that the thugs are in charge it took a anonymous blogger to break one of the biggest political news stories of the year, all while the M$M sat on the story and just didn't investigate it.

[Nbadan]

Can anybody here seriously say that any of the newspapers in question wouldn't have been slammed if they had published this report when they knew about it with an anonymous source?

So Faux news has no real investigative reporters anymore? Obviously, these e-mails were out there and have been out there for quite some time. That's hard physical evidence.

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

So Faux news has no real investigative reporters anymore? Obviously, these e-mails were out there and have been out there for quite some time. That's hard physical evidence.

Yes.

Now, they all knew who the kid was already, but if he won't go on the record to corroborate the "hard physical evidence," it would have read smear campaign, liberal bias and unethical journalism in a heartbeat and everybody would have discounted the journalism, no matter how good it would have been.

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

'St. Pete Times' Defends Holding Foley 'Page' Story. UPDATE: 'Miami Herald' Also Knew About E-Mails

By Joe Strupp

Published: October 02, 2006 12:00 PM ET

NEW YORK After giving its year-long knowledge of Congressman Mark Foley's questionable e-mail to a congressional page barely a mention in a Friday story about the scandal, the St. Petersburg Times on Saturday sought to explain why it did not report on the situation at the time in a special editor's note to readers.

In a similar move on Monday, The Miami Herald also revealed having similar e-mails last year, but did not beleive they had enough evidence for a story. Executive Editor Tom Fiedler was quoted as saying he "didn't feel there was sufficient clarity in the e-mails to warrant a story. We determined after discussion among several senior editors, including myself, that the content of the messages was too ambiguous to lead to a news story."

The St. Petersburg editor's note, placed on the paper's "The Buzz" blog on its Web site by Government and Politics Editor Scott Montgomery, contends that the Times did not ignore the seriousness of the situation and sought to report it fully when it learned of the e-mail in November 2005.

But, Montgomery writes, the paper could only verify one former page who had allegedly received explicit e-mails from Foley, who has since resigned, and that person did not want to be named. A second page, meanwhile, spoke on the record, but said he had not received any e-mails that were considered inappropriate.

"So, what we had was a set of emails between Foley and a teenager, who wouldn't go on the record about how those emails made him feel," the note said, in part. "... our policy is that we don't make accusations against people using unnamed sources. And given the seriousness of what would be implied in a story, it was critical that we have complete confidence in our sourcing. After much discussion among top editors at the paper, we concluded that the information we had on Foley last November didn't meet our standard for publication."

Montgomery also hinted that the paper had continued to pursue the story, writing, "Since that time, we revisited the question more than once, but never learned anything that changed our position." He did not offer specific information about how the pursuit was done or how long it was pursued.

Montgomery and Managing Editor Stephen Buckley could not immediately be reached for comment Monday. The editor's note drew dozens of comments from readers, both supporting the paper and slamming it for holding the story.

"How does it feel to be on the other side of a feeding frenzy?" one Web reader wrote. "Usually you are the sharks circling in the bloody water but now the tables are reversed and you have not handled the pressure well. You are stumbling through this feeding frenzy worse than any ... politician. It's a shame. I have lost all respect for your paper." Another added, "the Times protected Foley, everyone knows it."

But along with those criticizing the paper were others either directing criticism at the Republican Party or defending the newspaper. "Why on Earth are you beating up the SPT?" one post stated. "Your anger should be directed at the GOP-run Congress that KNEW about this 11 Months ago!!! ... I for one am disgusted & appalled by the ENTIRE Republican Party!!!"


http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003189841

[Nbadan]

Yes.

Now, they all knew who the kid was already, but if he won't go on the record to corroborate the "hard physical evidence," it would have read smear campaign, liberal bias and unethical journalism in a heartbeat and everybody would have discounted the journalism, no matter how good it would have been.

It was an AOL screen name, so they were using IM and AOL e-mails. Remember that AOL has been all to eager to hand-over personal customer information to the FEDS under the guise of the war on terra. Maybe Foley got caught in a trap of his own personal making.

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

Just become journos learn or are given information doesn't mean we can just run with it. I know many won't believe it, but many journos still have ethics that we do our damndest to live by.

We all know information that we can't do a lick about because we can't corroborate the hearsay or find the evidence. For years, the news, sports and management at The University Star knew far more about the tenure of then-football coach Manny Matsakis, but couldn't do a thing about without people who want to go on the record or evidence to prove it.

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

It was an AOL screen name, so they were using IM and AOL e-mails. Remember that AOL has been all to eager to hand-over personal customer information to the FEDS under the guise of the war on terra. Maybe Foley got caught in a trap of his own personal making.

I don't remember where journalists had the power of the federal government given to them. If we knew we could legally compel ISPs to turn over information, well, this would have been out a lot sooner.

[Nbadan]

OK, but in its series on child predators, MSNBC goes out of its way to, I would say, almost entrap unsuspecting men with the lurid possibility of a rendezvous with a under-age teen-aged girl. Well, here you have enough evidence to at least register a screen name on frickken AOL and try and get Foley and other suspecting Senators rumored to also be involved to arrange a meeting or make comments as cooraboration.

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

OK, but in its series on child predators, MSNBC goes out of its way to, I would say, almost entrap unsuspecting men with the lurid possibility of a rendezvous with a under-age teen-aged girl. Well, here you have enough evidence to at least register a screen name on frickken AOL and try and get Foley and other suspecting Senators rumored to also be involved to arrange a meeting or make comments as cooraboration.

And you'd have had those of us who disagree with that form of newsgathering complaining (and then likely branded as lovers of child-sex offenders).

Dan, your judgment is way off if you don't believe that anybody with any type of hatred or disdain for the media (and Foley himself) would have said "the liberal media forced him to arrange meetings, send sexually-charged e-mails, et al."

One of the most important rules in journalism is that you don't become part of the story to get your story - and sometimes, that means you're going to get scooped. Sometimes, you can get the scoop and do it right, and sometimes, you have to let somebody else get the scoop so that you can do it right.

[JoeChalupa]

I thought the big thing was "You heard it first here on KORN radio, TV....." and then just correct the facts as they become available.

[Nbadan]

The M$M should have put the interest of children over the interest of a politician

By Cliff Kincaid | October 3, 2006

"
Rather than deal with the fact that the Republican Congressional leadership has protected open and closeted homosexuals in its ranks, some conservative radio talk-show hosts are blaming the recent publicity over the Mark Foley scandal on a Democratic plot somehow linked to George Soros. They contend that Democrats engage in more horrible conduct. But these claims and charges, from partisans who put loyalty to the Republican Party over morality, are clearly designed to cover up the fact that Foley, a House Deputy Majority Whip, was known to be a homosexual and that any contacts he was having with former pages were, on their face, entirely inappropriate. House Republican leaders failed to protect the children."

Link (http://www.aim.org/aim_column/4909_0_3_0_C)

[Nbadan]

Quotes from the irrelavent today over page scandal...


http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/blogs/static/dowbrigade/rush.jpg
This wasn't a kid- it was a highly sexualized teen; why did he keep 52 instant messages?

[Spurminator]

Rather than deal with the fact that the Republican Congressional leadership has protected open and closeted homosexuals in its ranks


:wtf ??

[Nbadan]

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/blogs/static/dowbrigade/rush.jpg
Democrats 'set Foley up"; "I'm just telling you that the -- the -- the orgy and the orgasm that has been taking place in the media since Friday and with the Democrats is -- it's all coordinated, and it's all -- it's all oriented toward the election. There's no concern about the kid -- no concern about the children."

[Nbadan]

:wtf ??

Have you seen Ken Melman? That guy has laid more pipe than unlicensed plumbers in San Antonio

[Spurminator]

Have you seen Ken Melman? That guy has laid more pipe than unlicensed plumbers in San Antonio


I'm just trying to figure out how the writer believes these "homosexuals" should be dealt with. It's as though he's alledging some kind of gay epidemic in Congress that needs to be addressed.

[Nbadan]

http://www.taylormarsh.com/images2/sean_hannity.jpg
This is all political, because the democrats didnt repond the same way to an obscure congressman 23 years ago that no one remmeberes; blah blah blah - lewinsky, clinton raped juanita, etc

[Nbadan]

I'm just trying to figure out how the writer believes these "homosexuals" should be dealt with. It's as though he's alledging some kind of gay epidemic in Congress that needs to be addressed.

Common, these thugs don't like gays in their military. I think the writer is just pointing out the hypocrisy, which one could make a comfortable living at.

[Spurminator]

Common, these thugs don't like gays in their military. I think the writer is just pointing out the hypocrisy, which one could make a comfortable living at.


I read the rest, and he sure sounds like a simple homophobe to me...


Regardless of whether some of the more offensive Internet messages were held back for political impact, the House Republican leaders could have avoided the scandal if they had taken steps to rid their leadership and membership of known and active homosexuals. They have only themselves to blame.

Maybe it's satirical, I can't really tell.

[turambar85]

Tennessee: This race should not be competitive either. Face it an African-American Democrat having a shot in the south? Corker is bogged down with his own scandal and all the anti-Republican news makes this more competitive than it should ever have been. Ford wins?
.


Harold for is not a democrat, he is a confused joke. The sick part of this joke is that Tennesseans, and Bob Corker still talk about him as a crazy liberal...

Consider these things from Harold Fords T.V ads:

1. Says we need to get tougher on immigration
2. Supports the war in Iraq
3. We need a flag-burning ammendment
4. He learned the difference in right and wrong in church
5. Said he tells chldren to keep God 1st
6. And he voted for the patriot act and 5 trillion in a defense bill

Sounds very liberal-ish to me.....

I hate Tennessee...

[clambake]

They are trying to spin it off as if noone knew. Then Hastart says" We were going to handle the problem enternally".

BUSTED

[Ocotillo]

Rush Limbuagh commenting on this issue. LOL. This is the guy who was busted taking viagra on the airplane for his trip to a sex vacation in the Dominican and returned only using one. Ten hut!

[RandomGuy]

Rush Limbuagh commenting on this issue. LOL. This is the guy who was busted taking viagra on the airplane for his trip to a sex vacation in the Dominican and returned only using one. Ten hut!

Man, I try not to go for ad hominem, but this is one guy who would just cause me to take everything he said with a grain of salt.

[xrayzebra]

Huh-Ho. Now what. The "kid" was of age and now 21 years old. Get the egg off
your face, it looks silly!







ABC ONLINE GLITCH LEADS TO IDENTITY OF FOLEY ACCUSER

FAMOUS IM EXCHANGE WAS WITH 18 YEAR OLD

Wed Oct 04 2006 20:32:06 ET

A posting on ABCNEWS.COM of an unredacted instant message sessions between Rep. Mark Foley and a former congressional page has exposed the identity of the now 21 year-old accuser.

The website PASSIONATE AMERICA detailed the startling exposure late Wednesday.

ABCNEWS said in a statement: "We go to great lengths to prevent the names of alleged sex crime victims from being revealed. On Friday there was a very brief technical glitch on our site which was overridden immediately. It is possible that during that very brief interval a screen name could have been captured. Reviews of the site since then show no unredacted screen names."

[The PASSIONATE AMERICA webmaster tells the OKLAHOMAN that "he stumbled onto the former page's AOL screen name when looking at transcripts of the instant messages on ABC's Web site Saturday. He said he typed a slightly-different Web address into his browser and found a version of the transcript with the screen name. He claims the AOL name of the young man was still on ABCNEWS.COM before he posted his story on Wednesday.]

SEX CHAT WAS WITH 18 YEAR OLD

On Tuesday ABC news released a high-impact instant message exchange between Foley and, as ABC explained, a young man "under the age of 18."

ABC headlined the story: "New Foley Instant Messages; Had Internet Sex While Awaiting House Vote"

But upon reviewing the records, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned, the young man was in fact over the age of 18 at the time of the exchange.

A network source explains, messages with the young man and disgraced former Congressman Foley took place before and after the 18th birthday.

Developing...

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

That's some damn good digging by PA.

[Ocotillo]

Hmmm, Ray is that an omelet on your grill?

disputes Passionate America (http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Blogger_outs_boy_in_Foley_scandal_1004.html)

The blog Passionate America has revealed the identity and published a photograph of an alleged victim of disgraced Rep. Mark Foley in a post that was pulled and later re-posted with additional information.

RAW STORY can verify that the young man in question is not the Congressional page from the emails that originally surfaced; with that in mind, a direct link to the Passionate America post is not provided here.

RAW STORY has learned that the recipient of the Foley emails is currently 17 (and was 16 at the time of the correspondence).

Passionate America contends that the young man they identified took part in some of the instant message conversations obtained by ABC news. In those messages, the boy explicitly identified himself as being under the age of 18.

If the boy was over the age of 18 at the time of the messages, Foley's communication with him would likely still be considered criminal. Sex predator legislation is generally written bearing in mind that law enforcement sting operations rely on undercover officers pretending to be minors.

However, even if he is now 21, the man identified could still have been as young as 16 at the time of the messages. ABC has stated that they are in possession of chat logs from as much as five years back.

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

Hmmm, Ray is that an omelet on your grill?

disputes Passionate America (http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Blogger_outs_boy_in_Foley_scandal_1004.html)

The blog Passionate America has revealed the identity and published a photograph of an alleged victim of disgraced Rep. Mark Foley in a post that was pulled and later re-posted with additional information.

RAW STORY can verify that the young man in question is not the Congressional page from the emails that originally surfaced; with that in mind, a direct link to the Passionate America post is not provided here.

RAW STORY has learned that the recipient of the Foley emails is currently 17 (and was 16 at the time of the correspondence).

Passionate America contends that the young man they identified took part in some of the instant message conversations obtained by ABC news. In those messages, the boy explicitly identified himself as being under the age of 18.

If the boy was over the age of 18 at the time of the messages, Foley's communication with him would likely still be considered criminal. Sex predator legislation is generally written bearing in mind that law enforcement sting operations rely on undercover officers pretending to be minors.

However, even if he is now 21, the man identified could still have been as young as 16 at the time of the messages. ABC has stated that they are in possession of chat logs from as much as five years back.

Well, I can verify that I'm the reason Tony and Eva are having problems.

That doesn't necessarily mean you should believe me, though. Either RAW STORY needs to prove their evidence (and since it involves a minor, it'd probably be best not to do that) or disprove PA's evidence (which looks on the surface to be valid).

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

And on a second note: The Poynter Institute's ethics examination behind the Foley case (Poynter owns the St. Pete Times).

http://poynter.org/column.asp?id=67&aid=111809



Thursday, October 5, 2006

Dissecting the Foley Investigation

It's journalism's version of Monday-morning quarterbacking. Whenever we hear of a newsroom that had its fingers on a great story and let it go, only to get scooped, we love to imagine how we would have changed things.

I'm talking about the St. Petersburg (Fla.) Times (the newspaper owned by The Poynter Institute) and The Miami Herald, which have both revealed that last year they had copies of the e-mails a 16-year-old Louisiana boy received from Florida Rep. Mark Foley and then forwarded to his own congressman's office.

Miami Herald Editor Tom Fiedler says his paper was not aggressive enough. St. Petersburg Times Executive Editor Neil Brown says his newsroom did what it thought was appropriate.

The reporter in me knows that, in a perfect world, journalists dig until they are satisfied they know the truth. The realist tells me reporters and editors make daily decisions about which stories to publish, which stories to pursue and which stories to hold off on. Making that choice is sometimes an educated guess, other times a lucky gamble and often a decision made by default -- something else comes up.

Let's break it down.

It was an orchestrated leak that landed the e-mails into the hands of a few journalists. That's becoming clear. Not only did the St. Petersburg Times and The Miami Herald get the e-mails, so did Fox News, according to The Associated Press. I'm going to bet other newsrooms had the e-mails in question, too.

Veteran political reporters will tell you they sort through dirty information every day, trying to figure out what's true and newsworthy and what isn't. A tip that comes from the other side isn't always worthless, but you view it with skepticism because you know the guy who sent it wants to make someone else look bad. A tip that is widely shopped around gets a double dose of doubt.

The original e-mail from Foley to the boy was not obviously inappropriate. The first journalists to check it out were waved off by congressional staffers who dismissed it as "overly friendly." Several Poynter Ethics Fellows have been discussing the case.

Barbara White Stack, a veteran children's reporter at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, points out that this is typical for teens who raise red flags:

Adults don't believe teenagers as a general case, and specifically, the word of an adult is almost always taken over that of a teen. ... I think we must examine our own biases carefully when using our shit detectors.

Skip Foster, editor of The Star in Shelby, N.C., raises the question that editors raise all the time: How far should we go to check this out?

There was only a whiff of evidence that something improper was going on here -- basically, all the paper had was a mostly innocuous e-mail. ... I think the St. Pete Times showed a strong willingness to get to the bottom of the story -- a paper afraid to speak truth to power wouldn't have even made the initial allocation of resources to pursue the story. Bottom line: They just didn't have a publishable story.

Raul Ramirez, director of news and public affairs at KQED in San Francisco, agreed that there was no story with only the e-mail. But he would have pushed his staff to keep digging.

Given the nature of this potential story -- the possibility of a powerful public official using his public access to inexperienced, impressionable young people with questionable potential motives -- I think other steps would have been warranted. For instance, contacting the congressional page oversight office and asking whether other parents or pages had complained about questionable behavior directed at pages. Also contacting congressional leaders about past or pending complaints and past or pending investigations. As with any investigative story, I would want to know what mechanisms exist for dealing with complaints, which would enable us to assess whether there were any questions of unusual or special treatment in instances involving powerful individuals.

That's one approach. The other is simply to publish a small story and a copy of the e-mail, hoping that something else will surface. That's what ABC News did, in a blog.

The first story, appeared at 3:06 p.m. on Thursday, Sept. 28, in Brian Ross' "The Blotter." The short story was based on the e-mail and nothing else. Here's the lede: "A 16-year-old male former congressional page concerned about the appropriateness of an e-mail exchange with a congressman alerted Capitol Hill staffers to the communication. Congressman Mark Foley's office says the e-mails were entirely appropriate and that their release is part of a smear campaign by his opponent."

The next entry in the blog at 3:40 p.m. had Foley's Democratic opponent calling for an investigation. The explicit instant messages surfaced over the next 26 hours.

It was an educated gamble on ABC's part. In many cases of sexual abuse, more victims come forward after the first story is told. It's happened in stories about teachers, doctors, clergy and scout leaders.

But it was risky. Accusing someone of being a child predator without substantial evidence could lead to horrible consequences. An innocent man would certainly suffer. The newsroom would be vulnerable to an expensive legal suit. And the public would condemn the news media as sensational, irresponsible, anti-Republican stooges.

Even knowing the outcome, it's not a risk many journalists would feel comfortable taking.

As murky as the newsroom decisions are in the Foley case, journalists looking back over the story point out that our watchdog role should be the guiding force.

Raul Ramirez:

The alternative -- potentially allowing even more young people to be manipulated by a powerful man -- could not be easy to just accept. The notion of holding the powerful accountable is central to the role the American press ascribes to itself. The apparent facts in this situation pointed at potentially extreme forms of cynicism, hypocrisy and abuse of power.

There are many lessons in the Foley saga. Perhaps the most important one is that we learn to take children seriously, to respect their judgment and opinion. That can't be license to print anything they say. But history shows us that children are often the first to complain about inappropriate adult behavior. As adults and as journalists, we have to listen.

Posted by Kelly McBride 12:41:37 PM

[Zunni]

Well, I can verify that I'm the reason Tony and Eva are having problems.

That doesn't necessarily mean you should believe me, though. Either RAW STORY needs to prove their evidence (and since it involves a minor, it'd probably be best not to do that) or disprove PA's evidence (which looks on the surface to be valid).
Why are you insisting that RAWSTORY be held to a standard that PA isn't? WTF has PA "proved"? It's just another fucking blog. If they did in fact get info from AOL, they probably had to pretext it, since I don't think AOL is in the business of providing information to private parties on their users. If they got it off of some sort of AOL profile, WTF does that prove? You can put anything you want on there.

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

Why are you insisting that RAWSTORY be held to a standard that PA isn't? WTF has PA "proved"? It's just another fucking blog. If they did in fact get info from AOL, they probably had to pretext it, since I don't think AOL is in the business of providing information to private parties on their users. If they got it off of some sort of AOL profile, WTF does that prove? You can put anything you want on there.

I am holding PA to that same standard. RS said they can verify the information from PA is wrong, so verify or disprove it. I'm not going to believe it because they simply say they can do so. Show me something.

Read the PA walkthrough of their evidence. It looks fairly solid to me. I'm not saying it's wrong or right, but some dots seem to be connected and with the owner of the Page Site's reaction, well, if it's not solid, it's pretty damn close to make him react that way.

But as far as the AOL profile goes, that seemed to only be used to begin a search. When I search for information, you need a starting point. The AOL profile info pointed to a page that made statements, etc. (I'd say more, but I'm not about to open a relatively unknown blog at work to do so and look again....I'll come back when I get home tonight).

If I'm researching, I need a starting point. The screenname was a starting point. You say that people can put anything on a screenname profile, and while that's true, what are the chances that somebody would randomly put up information that would just by chance lead to a recently former Page from San Diego.

You know, if PA gets proven wrong (by RS or anybody else), then they lose their credibility and even moreso if they fabricated the info.

On a much lesser scale, tomorrow night, I'm going to cover the CC Carroll vs. East Central football game. In Saturday's paper, there will be a story from that game with my name in the byline.

I am putting my credibility on the line by saying that what you're going to read about that game is exactly what happened (EDIT: Fixed grammar) and that who I quote in that story said exactly what they said.

Every time a paper puts their nameplate on a story, a reporter puts their byline on the story or a blogger puts their name on a post...credibility is on the line.

That's why plaigiarists are usually dealt with swiftly. What reason would anybody have to trust them again (and their employer if they stay in their employ)?

You don't have to automatically trust me. I have to earn your trust by the work I put in and the words that I type. It's up to me to earn your trust.

It's up to PA and RS to earn mine.

[Zunni]

Repeat after me

Passionate America is ONLY a BLOG. They have no journalistic standards to meet, and will post anything that generates hits.

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

Repeat after me

Passionate America is ONLY a BLOG. They have no journalistic standards to meet, and will post anything that generates hits.

I would be a smart-ass and say RS is probably only a blog, but I don't know that for sure.

Oh, one other thing.

A little news organization asked another news organization if there might be something to PA's information.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15144901/

The little organization: The Associated Press
The other organization: ABCNews

By ABCN's thoughts, it seems to me as if the screen name has some legs, if not being correct.

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

Zunni, give me the benefit of the doubt here (and with your relatively recent join date, I don't expect you to know my political beliefs or when I usually post in the Political Forum).

Forget for a second the obvious partisanship of PA and look at their information (again, I can't walk it through while I'm at work, but will when I get home).

Is the information incorrect? Should it not at least be given a smell test and some basic background searches to see if it could possibly be correct?

Can you (generally speaking) dispute their evidence - and if you can, please do so...that's all I ask.

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

And just to say that PA might be wrong, reports are saying that one of the IM conversations had the page saying he was going to turn 18 soon.

I'll tell you what the whole PA thing actually makes me think...Could there be somebody else that ABCN hasn't told us about yet?

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

This is me live-blogging (I guess) since I don't want to start searching through stuff, but didn't one of the IM conversations have something to do with a visit in San Diego (which is where the PA kid is from)?

[boutons_]

yes, the IM about SD was that they met, but didn't "go all the way"

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

yes, the IM about SD was that they met, but didn't "go all the way"

So maybe this kid (anybody younger than me gets the 'kid' label in board typing) is another one Foley conversed with...which would me there has to be more than one page involved (the "soon to be 18" page and the page identified by PA).

[boutons_]

Yes, very clearly Foley was homoerotically messaging/contacting more than one page who were 30+ years younger than Foley. Maybe they weren't legal children, but the odor of pedophilia is overwhelming. Foley's finshed.

Hastert is horrible sonofabitch typical of party leadership, as is Frist (the Dem leaders are in the same shitty class)

Today obese, sickly Hastert (has any Congressional leader looked as decrepit since Tip O'Neal? where do they find these diseased bastards?) said the Foley affair was:

1) the fault of the Dems as campaign dirty tricks

2) paid for by (illegal-drug-financed) George Soros

3) backed by/instigated by Bill Clinton.

All slime and fog covering the question of:

why the Repug leadership didn't react on the Foley shit for at least a year, maybe 5.

This echoes how the WH/Exec failed to react to highest warnings about domestic attacks from the intelligence community in the summer of 2001.

btw, I still say the Foley affair was the Rove's October surprise to knock "last week's" Woodward book and the NIE off the front pages. :lol

[Ocotillo]

If the kid's were legal, why did Foley resign and run off to rehab?

[Spurminator]

If the kid's were legal, why did Foley resign and run off to rehab?

Legal or not, hitting on a congressional page (particularly in this manner) is still unprofessional and unbecoming of a US Representative.

[Nbadan]

Another interesting mystery in the Foley scandal has surfaced that I though posters here would find interesting. Everyone thinks that the Foley outing started on the ABC News blogspot, but the real original Foley outing happened on a blog called StopSexPredators.blogspot.com...

The Bogus Blog Behind Foley's Fall


ABCNews.com brought Mark Foley's boy-chasing to national attention, but it wasn't the first website to blog the story. That dubious honor belongs to StopSexPredators, a pseudo-vigilante blog filled with plagiarized, hastily-assembled posts, which no one seems to have heard of, visited, or linked to before last week—and whose operator has a suspiciously savvy grasp of the news cycle.

In other words, a blog whose sole raison d'etre seems to have been to get the Foley ball rolling.

If its time/date stamps are to be trusted (like most free blogware, Blogger allows its users to backdate posts), the pervert-outing anony-site was set up on July 28 as a "clearing house for the public to report sex predators and as a resource for concerned citizens."

One early post, headlined The Sickening Six, naming and shaming the "kinds of sick people who hunt minors for their own sick purposes," is basically an amalgam of plagiarized entries from Crimelibrary, Wikipedia, and Answers.com. (Click here, here, and here, for examples.)

After running just six posts over the summer, the site picked up steam on September 21 when its author wrote, "the blog has been noticed and some shocking emails have been received!!!!" and posted four emails purportedly from "interns" outraged by the heretofore unmentioned Foley and his penchant for teenage boys.

Radar Online (http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2006/10/the-bogus-blog-behind-foleys-fall.php)

The auther adds:

(Of course, if these emails are legit, it means the "interns" somehow stumbled upon the blog, despite the fact that it had not yet been linked to by any other sites, and was virtually indetectible to Google, which ranks sites according to the number of incoming links and hits.)

It seems that conspiracies aren't just for Liberals anymore.

[Nbadan]

Some snooping of stopsexpredators.blogspot.com provides interesting clues...


The mystery of who's behind StopSexPredators.blogspot.com deepens. On Wednesday evening, someone calling himself Andrew Seldon registered the URL "StopSexPredators.com," listing an address in Portland, Oregon. Was this our famed anony-blogger (who appears to have rejoined the party, minus the exclamation points!!!!), laying the groundwork for a public unveiling? Or just some cyber-squatter, snatching up a suddenly-hot web address?

A little investigating only raised more questions. A public records search turned up no evidence of an Andrew Seldon in Oregon, and a Radar operative who visited the address listed in the registry found no house or office, just "a tiny shotgun shack, no bigger than an outhouse, with no power line running to it" in a rural neighborhood of "rusting pickups, snarling dogs, moss-covered mailboxes, and ramshackle stables." Neighbors questioned said they had never heard of an Andrew Seldon.

Though an email address was also listed on the registry, a message sent to it produced no reponse, and by Thursday morning the name on the listing had been shortened to Andrew S.

Radar Online (http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2006/10/stopsexpredators-going-legit.php)

[MannyIsGod]

I don't give a shit if the newspapers didn't report that we found oil on the moon or that clinton stuck a cigar up george bush's butt.

We elect congressmen, not journalists.