Op-Ed News Most Read Story Oct 3, 2006________________________
Reported at The Raw Story
"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."
Clearly the news outlets mentioned above have forgotten what they are supposed to be doing as journalists. Key incriminating statement:
Lacking any corroborating information.
Are these not the folks whose job it is to find out if there is or isn’t any corroborating information? Is there a story here or not? If not, what are they doing all day? Running corporate video news releases and regurgitating the official propaganda of the Emperor?
Since when are they so kid gloved with a congressman who is “known to be gay”?
Had Fox, The ST. Petersburg Times or The Miami Herald chosen to even lift a finger to look into this it would have opened the same flood gate to the truth it did for the ABC journalists who did actually bother to check it out. Foley would have been stopped a year ago if any one of them had done their job.
Apparently they did not. Why? Perhaps that will make itself known in time as well.
If this does not say it all about the state of journalism at these outlets I surely don’t know what else could. One would expect a reputable news outlet to engage in something that was once known as investigative journalism. Did they even try to find out what the real story was before they decided on deeming it innocuous? Did any one of them give a thought to the fact that if there was any chance, innocuous or otherwise, that this man was a pedophile that kids could be at risk? Or did they decide to look the other way along with the Republican Party members who also knew about these e-mails and were warning pages to stay away from Foley as early as 2001.
Matthew Loraditch, a page in the 2001-2002 class, told ABC News he and other pages were warned about Foley by a supervisor in the House Clerk's office.
Loraditch, the president of the Page Alumni Association, said the pages were told "don't get too wrapped up in him being too nice to you and all that kind of stuff."
If they felt Foley was not a threat to these kids why would they be warning them about him? Foley is a sick individual and his crimes are abominable. What of those that look the other way? How can we not hold them equally responsible from the point at which they chose to look the other way?
They can all defend themselves till the cows come home, but the cold hard fact is they were negligent in protecting these kids after questions were raised. Why did they do nothing? Only they know for sure and it is they who must live with the fact that they let these kids down when they could have stopped this or at the very least made absolutely sure that it was all really…
INNOCUOUS.
Guess we all know now that it was not.
