Papers Knew of Foley E-Mail but Did Not Publish Stories

[DoYouEverWonder]

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.

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


Related GD thread from this morning. Only took the NYT's all day to catch up.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2281483

[central scrutinizer]

1. Or they were going to keep it quiet to protect him until November

We had a similar thing here in Oregon with Bob Packwood. The Portland Oregonian had the story but sat on it until after the election. The shit storm was so bad that Packwood had to resign but a good candidate, Les AuCoin, was screwed out of a Senate seat.

[truthisfreedom]

2. so? they should have turned the information over to the FBI if they were

not going to use it in a story.

[seafan]

3. Not only the St Pete Times, Miami Herald, but FOX News too!

Meanwhile, 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."

[KitSileya]

4. Huh? Was Foley out of the closet as gay?

"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."

Had Foley openly admitted he was gay, or was it one of those secrets everyone knew?

It's obvious that they're now using the claim that he's gay to stop the criticism, seeing how we liberals are supposed to 'worship' gay rights, and therefore are hypocrites if we now criticize Foley. Tho', I've yet to see any evidence that he's gay - we know he's a pedophile, but is he gay as well?

[seafan]

6. Foley has never confirmed it, and goes out of his way to blame others when

the questions arise.

See this article from June 1, 2003 from the St. Pete Times:


Don't ask, because Mark Foley won't tell

It's a basic political premise: Get in front of a potentially damaging story before it overwhelms you. That's certainly what Republican U.S. Senate candidate Mark Foley had in mind when the five-term congressman called an unusual press conference recently.
Reports that he's gay are about to spread from alternative and gay media outlets to major Florida newspapers, Foley said. He blamed Democratic activists for spreading the rumor and decried the "repulsive" campaign tactic.
He wanted reporters to know that he won't answer questions about his sexuality; it has nothing to do with his candidacy.

Don't ask, won't tell.

snip

So is the Republican Party, increasingly struggling to balance a desire for tolerance and inclusiveness with conservative views of family values.
This is new and uncomfortable political ground, and a lot of Republican activists acknowledge they have no idea how it will play out.

snip

In Florida Foley did succeed in getting control of the budding story, sort of. He rounded up prominent conservatives, from Gov. Jeb Bush to U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, to tout his strong Republican record.
But his damage control effort pushed whispers that most media had ignored for months into newspapers across the state (his hometown paper, the Palm Beach Post, opted not to report on his news conference). It made CNN and the Bill O'Reilly show.
He also managed to infuriate some gay activists for his denunciation of people trying to "slur me" with the gay rumor.

snip

Many conservative voters will only accept a gay politician "as long as he appears to not be happy about it," U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., told Slate.com after Foley's news conference.

snip

Still, the Florida GOP is finding that a big tent philosophy makes some party faithful uneasy. While Foley blamed Democrats for spreading rumors about him, virtually everybody mentioning the issue to this newspaper before his news conference was Republican.
Last year, Patrick Howell, an openly gay self-described Reagan conservative, ran for an Orlando-area state legislative seat being vacated by Republican Allen Trovillion. Trovillion, a social conservative, endorsed the Democrat who wound up winning.
Even news that state GOP chairwoman Carole Jean Jordan planned to meet this week with a gay Republican organization, the Broward Log Cabin Republican Club, upset some activists.

"What is this," Sandi Trusso of Ocala asked in an e-mail to Gov. Bush about the Log Cabin meeting. "Is it time for a recall on the state chairman's office? I thought we were Republicans!"

snip

The hatred and intolerance that grips people like these, will swallow them alive.

[KitSileya]

29. Goodness gracious.

They aren't very good to their own, are they. However, that is no excuse for what Foley did. And it makes it ever so more infuriating, because now everyone on the right will 'excuse' Foley's felonies by saying he's gay, as if that explains it, which it doesn't. But it certainly gives them an extra stick with which to hit the democratic agenda.

[DoYouEverWonder]

7. Apparently, around FL it was 'common' knowledge

"As somebody who has met Mark Foley personally and has mutual friends, I am sad for Mark and I hope he doesn't go to jail. The last time I saw Mark, he was 19 years into a relationship. That was sad that it had to be hidden. I hope the Republican Party continues to evolve so it's not so difficult to be an openly gay Republican. Will this play into the fears that all gay people are pedophiles? I hope not. There are heterosexual situations as well. Everybody decries this kind of situation. Even Mark Foley did, but he couldn't control it."

• Finance writer Andrew Tobias of Miami, treasurer of the Democratic National Committee


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2281472

[KitSileya]

30. I can certainly understand that it must have been exceedingly

difficult to live a life in the closet, but that is no excuse for what he did. Even if he thought that these pages might be easier to keep quiet, because they were young, it doesn't excuse it. Foley is over 50 years old, IIRC, and not in danger of being tossed out of his parents' house if he comes out of the closet. So what if his political career was at stake - it should have given him pause for thought that he was dedicating his life to an organization that would sooner see him politically dead than letting his partner of 19 years support him in his campaign, for example. What he did wasn't gay, anymore than it would have been straight if Hastert had done the same to some of the female pages - it was sexual harassment and pedophilia.

[DoYouEverWonder]

32. I can't imagine

being in a relationship with someone for 19 years, where I had to either hide or deny the relationship all that time.

[KitSileya]

35. Yes, but as I pointed out, he is over 50 years old.

Old enough to decide at least not to support and aid an organization that would make it even more impossible to stand proudly next to his partner on public occasions. He could have joined the Democratic party. I mean, he wasn't in the same situation as LGBT military personell, who don't have an alternative.

[NorthernSpy]

5. if Foley had been one of us, they'd have jumped on the story immediately..

Special treatment for the GOP is the rule, not the exception.

And BTW, didn't it come out recently that a bunch of Florida journalists are on the White House payroll?

[Demeter]

8. Papers Knew of Foley E-Mail but Did Not Publish Stories --NYTimes

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/03/washington/03media.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print

By ANNE E. KORNBLUT and KATHARINE Q. SEELYE

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.

At the same time, the papers’ decisions not to report the accusations are being cited by Republican leaders as justification for why they themselves did not step forward earlier to try to stop Mr. Foley.

The St. Petersburg Times said that last November, it received copies of an e-mail exchange between Mr. Foley and a former page from Louisiana. The newspaper said the boy, who was under age, did not want his name used, and the paper said it did not want to publish accusations based on unnamed sources. The Miami Herald apparently received the same information, although it is not clear when it received it.

David D. Kirkpatrick contributed reporting.

THUS THE INTERNET ONCE AGAIN PROVES THAT HE WHO OWNS THE PRESS HAS THE FREEDOM. WITH THE INTERNET, WE ALL HAVE A FREE PRESS!!!

[flyarm]

9. here is st pete times article about it

St Pete Times knew (Foley) Nov.2005..Held story


..........they knew some info but held it.........they knew in Nov 2005



In November, the St. Petersburg Times contacted U.S. Rep. Rodney Alexander, R-La., after obtaining a series of e-mails from Foley to one of Alexander's former pages. In one of the e-mails, Foley had requested the page's photo, and the page forwarded the e-mails to an Alexander staffer asking if he was right to see it as "sick, sick, sick, sick."

Foley told the Times it was an innocent exchange, and Alexander told the Times in November he was unaware of the matter until the newspaper called. The Times never published a story, and never saw sexually explicit e-mails from Foley.

The "internal review" released by Hastert on Saturday says in fall 2005, Alexander's chief of staff contacted the Speaker's Office about Foley's e-mail exchange and that Alexander was concerned about it. The speaker's deputy chief of staff and in-house counsel told Alexander's aide to contact the House clerk, who oversees the page program.

http://www.sptimes.com/2006/10/01/State/Scandal_leaves_...

[rodeodance]

12. Red flags all around and NOONE 'could imagine" this would happen.

[flyarm]

26. new link for st pete times article..they knew in Nov 2005!!

sorry original link i posted is dead..here is new one...


http://www.sptimes.com/2006/10/01/State/Scandal_leaves_GOP_in.shtml

In November, the St. Petersburg Times contacted U.S. Rep. Rodney Alexander, R-La., after obtaining a series of e-mails from Foley to one of Alexander's former pages. In one of the e-mails, Foley had requested the page's photo, and the page forwarded the e-mails to an Alexander staffer asking if he was right to see it as "sick, sick, sick, sick."

Foley told the Times it was an innocent exchange, and Alexander told the Times in November he was unaware of the matter until the newspaper called. The Times never published a story, and never saw sexually explicit e-mails from Foley.

The "internal review" released by Hastert on Saturday says in fall 2005, Alexander's chief of staff contacted the Speaker's Office about Foley's e-mail exchange and that Alexander was concerned about it. The speaker's deputy chief of staff and in-house counsel told Alexander's aide to contact the House clerk, who oversees the page program.

[rodeodance]

10. so-itwa a blogger who broke the news--

......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.

[warrens]

18. I wonder which blog...that's quite a story

[The Backlash Cometh]

11. Now you see, if it had been a Democrat and the news media was

Fox News, that information would have been printed, even if the e-mails were not the tingly type.

[TechBear_Seattle]

13. Those papers that did know and remained silent should be prosecuted

Isn't "accessory to a crime involving a child" a major felony? I would dearly love to see one or more of Foley's targets bring a civil suit against these newspapers for their silence.

[rodeodance]

14. my gawd--and the Repugs are using this to justify not investigating!

At the same time, the papers’ decisions not to report the accusations are being cited by Republican leaders as justification for why they themselves did not step forward earlier to try to stop Mr. Foley.

[rodeodance]

15. Recommend

[Double T]

16. MSM corrupt corporate owned print media kowtows to the rethugs........

even when laws are broken and blatant lies are told. The MSM always has the rethugs backs.

[Felinity]

17. GMAFB K& R

"At the same time, the papers’ decisions not to report the accusations are being cited by Republican leaders as justification for why they themselves did not step forward earlier to try to stop Mr. Foley."

So the Grand Old Pedophiles don't act to protect the MINOR CHILDREN IN THEIR CARE because the evidence a newspaper has received (and didn't they have more?) did not meet a newspaper's slander threshold?

They can't investigate a fellow member until the story shows up in print?


:wtf:

[Tansy_Gold]

20. thank you, Felinity

for recognizing that the paper can't publish EVERYTHING it receives.

It seems to me we Dems ought to be cognizant of the media's responsibilities to make sure what they're putting out there as "news" really isn't "lies." Any of us -- including pukes -- can send an email accusing anyone of anything. Remember Gary Condit?

The papers, I presume, checked the only sources they had available -- the person who sent the email, Foley, and Alexander. They didn't have access to other pages, to other congresspeople, to the non-congresspeople (House Clerk, etc.) in the page program. We know who had access to those sources. . ..

[Felinity]

23. Actually I do fault the newspaper somewhat

The source they had was primary, but just wouldn't go on the record. If they were still investigating, fine. But if they deep sixed it, then they were complicit.

But I am not concerned with the newspapers policy or decision to any great extent, unless they failed to inform Repub. leadership or the authorities. Most states have reporting requirements for suspected child predators.

But for the Republicans to hide behind the newspapers' skirts. HAH! :nopity:

[Demeter]

37. That's What Investigative Reporting Is For

you know, Lois Lane stuff? Jack Anderson Stuff? Woodward and Bernstein?


Aw fuggettaboutit!

[LynnTheDem]

19. How to handle "in an election year"...

So it's now just open fact that news is "handled" differently "in an election year".

Uh huh.

That's partly why so many Americans are so ignorant when even 3rd world populations are not.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

25. The Media ARE Influencing Elections!!!

When the media withholds information from the public, it denies us the ability to know what our leaders are doing and to hold them accountable. Politics should NEVER be a factor in deciding whether (or when) to publish important news stories. :argh:

[Doctor_J]

21. Media = GOP

If this had been a Dem it would've run 24/7 the moment it hit. Goebbels is smiling up from hell at Rove's media monopoly.

[The Stranger]

22. THE EMAILS THEMSELVES ARE NOT ENOUGH "SOLID MATERIALS"?

Holy mindfuck.

[stanwyck]

24. Why didn't Drudge break the story?

Guess he's really without whatever insider status he ever had. Or did he and the other GOP whores know, and just decide to hold their collective breath until after the mid-terms?
Interesting rightwing math: 23-yr. old intern = a 16 yr. old page.
Ah, the smell of hypocrisy in the morning. Smells like the sweat of repressed conservatives with dark desires.

[newspeak]

27. so, how's that liberal media?

I remember that the media held off on the S&L debacle until after poppy was elected. Couldn't have the Neil Bush scandal pop up before the election. The media gladly withheld it until after the fact. Most of the media has never been liberal, they have always reported what their corporate masters wanted them to, and always with the right timing.

[KansDem]

28. Foley in 2000: "This election is over; Foley now: "This erection is over."

Remember, this is about a pedophile, and, as such, he should be dealt with. Wasn't the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) passed in 2000? How does it play into this?

:grr:

I don't believe this for a second:
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.--Why? I think they should explain themselves...

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

33. tip of the iceburg

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=359924937663867563&q=conspiracy+of+silence

[allisonthegreat]

34. figures...

Probably waiting for collaboration!

[autorank]

36. They had to wait until "management" gave them the green light.

Pathetic isn't it! But not really, it's predictable. Shame on them if they know shame.

[underpants]

38. Rush just explained this to me- it is an example of liberal media

See according to his thinking the fact that they didn't publish this WAS because they say (his reading) that they didn't have concrete sources (they couldn't read the IMs?) but Brian Ross did report shows that ABC is liberal and that the whole thing will come out months after the election when we find out what Democratic war room leaked this to Ross. It is Ross's fault. Oh Rush told me that Ross had this information but was busy reporting on the first anniversary of Katrina and the 5th anniversary of 9/11 to report on it, Ross endanger these children by holding onto this information (from several years ago) and not reporting on it. Rush told me.