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

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


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 in bent 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 compe ive. That was before Allen let his sheets show. Webb wins.

Tennessee: This race should not be compe ive 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 compe ive 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 in bent. 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 compe ive 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 compe ive 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 s 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/ea..._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 sexuals 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 sexual 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

[Nbadan]

Quotes from the irrelavent today over page scandal...

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 sexuals in its ranks

??

[Nbadan]

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]

??

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 " sexuals" should be dealt with. It's as though he's alledging some kind of gay epidemic in Congress that needs to be addressed.

[Nbadan]

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 " sexuals" 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.