PressEthic

With all of the media attention being given to former Congressman Mark Foley's inappropriate conduct, it isn't surprising that questions would be raised regarding how the story actually developed, and whether news organizations had a responsibility to act on anonymous sources that could have brought this story to light a long time ago. An article in the New York Times today entitled, "Papers Knew of Foley E-Mail But Did Not Publish Articles" describes the situation as controversial:

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.

This seems logical to me, especially considering the loss of credibility that occurs when a publication cites unnamed sources. The article continues:

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.

So, what's being said here? It is the fault of the St. Petersburg Times and The Miami Herald that Republican leaders did not investigate Foley's actions sooner? This seems preposterous, as does the notion that both papers should have broken the story in 2005, if it is indeed true that neither publication had enough concrete evidence to work with. The Miami Herald editor's defense makes sense:

The editor of The Herald, Tom Fiedler, said the initial messages did not seem to justify writing 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," Mr. Fiedler was quoted in his paper as saying.

The editors of the two Florida papers had difficult decisions to make regarding whether or not to pursue this story when they first received word of it in 2005. Although political officials, news organizations and the public may question their decisions, it should be noted that it was a tough call to make, and one that journalists are faced with often, no doubt. It does, however, make for an incredible story now that it has been reported with elections looming so close. The implications of this scandal could potentially have an enormous impact on Congress, as Mark Foley's name has already been printed on the ballot. Of course, his votes will instead go to Joe Negron, the replacement candidate chosen by Republicans in Florida. But to vote for Negron, voters have to "vote" Foley.