All Blog Posts from Public Eye

In the Los Angeles Times today, Michelangelo Signorile points a finger at the media for not long ago outing Mark Foley. "By not reporting on Foley's deceitful life for more than 15 years — during which he portrayed himself as a heterosexual politician — the media enabled a man overwhelmed by the destructiveness of the closet to ultimately implode in the halls of Congress," he writes.

Signorile suggests that the media helped perpetuate a fiction that may have led to Foley's inappropriate behavior with congressional pages – not because Foley is gay, but because his sexuality was repressed. "Although homosexuality, like heterosexuality, is not inherently dangerous," he writes, "repressed sexuality — whether it's repressed homosexuality or repressed heterosexuality — certainly can be harmful when the dam bursts."

In The New Republic, meanwhile, Michael Crowley writes about the pressures on gay Republicans in Washington. "For the dozens of gay Republicans on Capitol Hill--including senior aides to some of the most powerful and moralistic members of the House and Senate--the past few weeks have been a nightmare," he writes. "On the right, gay Republicans face the likes of Tony Perkins and Pat Buchanan implying that the so-called 'velvet mafia' enabled Foley's depredations and claiming linkage between pedophilia and homosexuality. On the left, meanwhile, are gay liberals furious over the Bush-era GOP's gay-baiting and increasingly willing to 'out' the Republican regime's closeted enablers--with the help of their tell-all blogs."

There has long been a debate about whether the sexuality of gay politicians, particularly those who take positions some see as contrary to gay interests, should be reported – as well as a debate about whether their staffers should be treated the same way. Signorile argues that the solution is simple: "If a public figure's homosexuality is relevant to a larger story, then the public should know," he writes. "Foley voted for an anti-gay law, which should have been reason enough for the press corps to expose his hypocrisy. When aspects of a public figure's heterosexuality are relevant — past relationships, marriages, children, divorces and the like — the media dutifully report on them, whether or not the subjects approve of such reporting."

Read full post…

Last November, the St. Petersburg Times got its hands on "ambiguous" – and not sexually explicit – emails from Mark Foley to a congressional page from Louisiana. The emails included Foley's (now infamous) request for a "pic," and the page admitted they made him uncomfortable.

The Times, in what Executive Editor Neil Brown calls "a close call," elected not to run a story. Yesterday he explained why: (link via Romo)

I led deliberations with our top editors, and we concluded that we did not have enough substantiated information to reach beyond innuendo.

We were unsuccessful in getting members of Congress who were involved in the matter or those who administer the House page corps to acknowledge any problem with Foley's ambiguous e-mail or to suggest that they thought it was worth pursuing.

And we couldn't come up with a strong enough case to explain to a teenager's parents why, over their vehement pleas to drop the matter, we needed to make their son the subject of a story - and the incredible scrutiny that would surely follow.

It added up to this conclusion: To print what we had seemed to be a shortcut to taint a member of Congress without actually having the goods.

The emails came out, of course – on an anonymous blog, and then on ABCNews.com. That's when the floodgates opened. As it turned out, "the goods" were there.

Read full post…

On Tuesday night's "Evening News," Gloria Borger said this:

"One senior House Republican tells CBS that there's a lot of anger at what he describes as 'a network of gay staffers and gay members who protect each other and did the speaker a disservice.'"

The New Republic's Michael Crowley picks up on Borger's comment. He argues that "it's becoming clear that some people on Capitol Hill are promoting a storyline that involves gay Republican staffers--apparently led by [Tom Reynolds's chief of staff Kirk] Fordham--covering up for Mark Foley." Crowley suggests "maybe this is how Dennis Hastert and his compatriots are explaining themselves to the base."

He also notes David Corn's report on "The List" – a document being passed around political circles of high-level Republican congressional aides who are gay.

Corn, a liberal, says he will not publish The List, even though he has a copy. Here's his conclusion:

Let's be clear about one thing: the Mark Foley scandal is not about homosexuality. Some family value conservatives are suggesting it is. But anytime a gay Republican is outed by events, a dicey issue is raised: what about those GOPers who are gay and who serve a party that is anti-gay? Are they hypocrites, opportunists, or just confused individuals? Is it possible to support a party because you adhere to most of its tenets--even if that party refuses to recognize you as a full citizen? The men on The List might want to think hard about these questions--as they probably already have--for if I have a copy of The List, there's a good chance it will be appearing soon on a website near everyone.

In the coming days, we may see the Foley story morph into a referendum on gay Republicans – particularly if the G.O.P. continues to push the storyline that Foley was protected by "a network of gay staffers and gay members." News organizations, one can safely assume, would not be happy about such a development. The questions surrounding putting gay Republicans in the spotlight – and how the press handles such questions – would be incredibly divisive: Conservative site Newsbusters is already lauding Borger for breaking the "PC Barrier" by taking about the alleged network; others, no doubt, will criticize news outlets for talking about staffers' personal lives. And what of The List? If it hits the Web, as Corn suggests, should news outlets publish it? Should they do follow up reporting based on its contents?

Read full post…

Actor Mel Gibson launches an anti-Semitic tirade at police while being arrested for drunken driving and checks himself into a rehab center. Congressman Patrick Kennedy crashes his car into a Capitol Hill security barrier and says his painkiller addiction requires treatment. Now-former Congressman Mark Foley enters rehab for an alcohol addiction that absolutely nobody seemed to know about after instant messages emerged revealing him to be at least a virtual sexual predator. As more and more examples emerged, Foley attorney David Roth informs the media that his client wishes them to know he was molested by a “clergyman” when he was a child.

There’s a little space between these problems and the infamous “Twinkie defense,” used by Dan White, who claimed that the delicious snack cake was what drove him to shoot the mayor of San Francisco in 1978. But to what extent is the public tiring of even the most legitimate causes of unacceptable behavior – and how would you cover it as a reporter, correspondent or editor? Here’s how some covered Foley’s revelations from yesterday:

On the “CBS Evening News,” anchor Katie Couric introduced the story by saying: “More bizarre twists in the growing scandal involving former Florida Congressman Mark Foley. His lawyer acknowledged today that Foley is gay, but denied Foley had sex with congressional pages. And then he made a shocking claim.” Correspondent Gloria Borger led her report by saying: “As word spread today of more sordid e-mails between former Congressman Mark Foley and minors, his lawyer took to the microphones late today to deliver this bombshell.”

On NBC’s “Nightly News,” correspondent Chip Reid also put the revelation up front: “Tonight there's another strange twist in this strange story. Mark Foley's attorney revealing that Foley himself was abused as a teenager. Foley's attorney says the new revelation is not intended as an excuse for his client's behavior.”

And ABC anchor Charlie Gibson also led into the story by mentioning Roth’s statement, calling it a “bombshell” as well.

Brian Skoloff of the Associated Press played it very straight, leading his story with this: “Former Rep. Mark Foley, under investigation for sending lurid Internet messages to young male Capitol Hill pages, issued a series of revelations from rehab, including a claim that he had been sexually abused as a teen.”

Read full post…

Blogs might not be making traditional news outlets obsolete, but the unfolding scandal surrounding Rep. Mark Foley has demonstrated that they are playing a pretty significant role in advancing stories. In this case especially, it was a mainstream outlet’s blog post that set in motion what is becoming one of the most explosive political sagas of the midterm election season.

While the initial "overly friendly" e-mails between Foley and a former congressional page first appeared on an anonymous blog, stopsexpredators.blogspot.com, ABC News’ Brian Ross later reported them not on television, but on his blog at ABCNews.com, The Blotter.

And it was the initial blog post that ended up significantly advancing the story—once it was posted, other former pages contacted Ross and shared several overtly sexual instant messages from Foley that led to his resignation. (More messages continue to surface and be posted on Ross’ blog.)

Howard Kurtz reported yesterday that Ross "says the Internet made the story possible, because on Thursday he posted a story on his ABC Web page, the Blotter, after obtaining one milder e-mail that Foley had sent a 16-year-old page, asking for a picture. Within two hours, former pages had e-mailed Ross and provided the salacious messages. The only question then, says Ross, was 'whether this could be authenticated.'"

Read full post…