PressEthic

According to a New York Times article published on Oct. 3, the St. Petersburg Times and The Miami Herald both received copies of emails sent by Mark Foley a year before the scandal broke. According to the papers' editors, neither had gathered enough "solid materials" to publish a story.

The article stated,

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.

Was it wrong for these two papers to hold the story? Even Brian Ross of ABC News, the media outlet that eventually broke the story officially (it was written on a blog first), said he learned about the messages in August, but "was too busy with Hurricane Katrina and the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks to pursue them immediately."

Tom Fielder, the editor of the Miami Herald, said:

We determined after discussion among several senior editors, including myself, that the content of the messages was too ambiguous to lead to a news sotry.

In an environment where media criticism is rampant, wasn't waiting the smarter move? And, if it was the "smarter move," was the media doing its job or were they just lazy and didn't investigate it thoroughly?