About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Media failed to note Hastert's evolving explanations in Foley scandal

October 02, 2006 6:34 pm ET

SUMMARY: Numerous print media outlets reported Speaker of the House J. Dennis Hastert's most recent explanation of when he learned that former Rep. Mark Foley had engaged in inappropriate email correspondences with former congressional pages. But these outlets ignored the shifts in Hastert's account since the story broke, as well as House Majority Leader John Boehner's conflicting statements regarding whether he discussed the problem with Hastert.

8 Comments

In their October 2 coverage of the emerging scandal surrounding former Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL), numerous print media outlets reported Speaker of the House J. Dennis Hastert's (R-IL) most recent explanation of when he learned that Foley had engaged in inappropriate email correspondences with former congressional pages. But these outlets ignored the shifts in Hastert's account since the story broke: While he originally claimed to have learned only last week of the concerns regarding Foley, Hastert later conceded that Rep. Thomas Reynolds (R-NY) had brought the issue to his attention in the spring of 2006 and that his aides had learned of it in late 2005. Further, several outlets entirely ignored House Majority Leader John Boehner's (R-OH) conflicting statements regarding whether he discussed the problem with Hastert.

On September 29, Foley resigned from Congress after ABC News reported that he had engaged in sexually inappropriate email and instant message conversations with underage male pages. Following this news, the House Republican leadership offered an evolving series of accounts of what Hastert knew and when he knew it, as Media Matters documents below:

  • On September 29, following the news of Foley's resignation, aides to Hastert told the Chicago Tribune that the speaker "was not aware until last week of [Foley's] inappropriate behavior."
  • That same evening, Washington Post staff writers Jonathan Weisman and Charles Babington reported that Boehner said he had "learned this spring of some 'contact' between Foley and a 16-year-old page," and had told Hastert, who "assured him 'we're taking care of it.' "
  • Meanwhile, an article posted that evening on the Roll Call website reported that "Boehner strongly denied media reports late Friday night that he had informed Hastert of the allegations, saying 'That is not true.' "
  • According to the September 30 print version of the Post article, Boehner called Weisman and Babington back after the original version of the article appeared on the Post's website and claimed "he could not remember" whether he had, in fact, discussed the matter with Hastert. A September 30 Roll Call article further reported that "Boehner now denies telling the Post of such a conversation between Hastert and himself, and his aides said on Saturday that he 'cannot recall' informing anyone other than [Paula] Nowakowski, his top aide, of the matter."
  • On September 30, Reynolds disclosed that he -- like Boehner -- had learned of the Foley emails "months ago" from Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-LA), who had sponsored the 16-year-old page in question. Reynolds said that he then "told the speaker of the conversation Mr. Alexander had with me."
  • After Reynolds's account surfaced, Hastert issued a statement asserting that Alexander had notified his aides of the Foley emails in late 2005. Hastert further conceded that Reynolds had informed him of the issue in the spring of 2006, though he claimed not to remember the discussion. The statement read: "While the Speaker does not explicitly recall this conversation, he has no reason to dispute Congressman Reynold's [sic] recollection that he reported to him on the problem."

In their October 1 coverage, several news outlets reported that Hastert had changed his story following Reynolds's statement. The Post reported that Reynolds's account "contradict[ed] the speaker's assertions that he learned of concerns about Foley only last week." Meanwhile, the Associated Press noted that Hastert "earlier said he'd learned about the e-mails only last week."

The October 1 New York Times article, however, noted Hastert's statement that he had "no reason to dispute" Reynolds's account, but made no mention of his earlier claim that he had only learned of the Foley emails the prior week. Further, the Times reported that Boehner had been notified of the concerns surrounding Foley last spring, but entirely ignored his various reported claims on September 29 that he had informed Hastert of the issue in the spring of 2006, that he had done no such thing, and that he could not remember if he had or had not.

The Post's October 2 article on the emerging scandal again noted Hastert's conflicting accounts:

As the scandal broke, Hastert contended he learned of concerns about Foley only last week. But after Rep. Thomas M. Reynolds (R-N.Y.) said Saturday that he had notified Hastert months ago of Foley's e-mails to a 16-year-old boy, the speaker did not dispute his colleague, and Hastert's office acknowledged that some aides knew last year that Foley had been ordered to cease contact with the youth.

But in their October 2 coverage, other print media simply reported Hastert's most recent explanation while ignoring his earlier contradictory account. Times reporters Carl Hulse and Jeff Zeleny noted that "Reynolds said he had also told Mr. Hastert, though Mr. Hastert said he did not remember the conversation." The article by AP staff writer Lara Jakes Jordan reported Reynolds's statement that he "told Hastert months ago about the allegations involving a 16-year-old boy from Louisiana." And Los Angeles Times staff writers Noam N. Levey and Chuck Neubauer wrote that Reynolds "said that he discussed it with Hastert, though the House speaker has said he has no recollection of the conversation but has no reason to doubt Reynolds."

Further, none of the above outlets reported Boehner's varying claims regarding whether he had discussed the issue with Hastert after learning about it in early 2006. The AP article additionally failed to note that Boehner had been notified of the Foley emails last spring.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by worrierking (October 02, 2006 6:41 pm ET)
         

      I think it would be best if the Republicans intelligently designed an explanation.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by draftedin68 (October 02, 2006 6:51 pm ET)
         

      ... they are the tiny particles that make up the billowing smokescreen now being spread by Dennny and the Do-Nuthins.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by MickD (October 02, 2006 9:47 pm ET)
         

      This is truly amazing, denial on denial separated at birth.

      [link to jeffrey-feldman.typepad.com]

      Report Abuse
    • Author by HuntingtonBeachLefty (October 03, 2006 12:30 am ET)
         

      as I heard this thing develop today. Most of the reports said that journalists or Dems said that Repubs were AWARE of the emails.

      Almost every response was that they hadn't SEEN the emails.

      Maybe I imagined it, tell me if I'm wrong, but it sounded like another one of those semantic technicalities that rightys hate so much, and use so freely.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by daleesq8459 (October 03, 2006 1:46 am ET)
           

        As a lawyer, I know how weasly smart & crooked people can be with their wording. Just saying that "I didn't see the emails" doesn't cut it. Did he ever deny NOT KNOWING about the content??? I agree with you, Huntington. They aren't slipping this one past US.

        I feel like this is the Alice in Wonderland world, where the Party of Integrity is just the opposite. Best thing the righties and neocons could do is salvage their credibilty and get behind the effort to flush out the truth, and flush out the immoral pols who seem to use the cheap trick (like priests??) of "appearing" to be so against what they themselves are doing in the background. Recall Shakespeare, when "they protest too much." It means they have something to hide.

        What cowards. And the media isn't much better. I am surprised ABC didn't accept the deal offered to keep this quiet. AH! Cynical me! It must be because they value $$$ more than anything.

        Foley and Reynolds tried to buy silence with their campaign largess, and it failed. Another irony? The shennanigans in Florida with Republican gerrymandering will mean that Foley's name must stay on the ballot. I suppose this is one seat that is a, er, "slam dunk."

        Could somebody wake up Ken Starr and task him on this project? After all, Hastert wants to find out everyone who knew and when they knew it. Look in the mirror, Dennis, if you can bear your own hypocrasy (tho liars and cheats have no conscience...)

        Report Abuse
    • Author by daleesq8459 (October 03, 2006 1:34 am ET)
         

      These Republicans are simply devoid of character. All the care about is winning and power. The people, and now the minors (Pages) are secondary.

      Put against Clinton's picadillos (consenting adults, no business of the public), and, say, Rostenkowski's overuse of postage stamps, the Dems are minor leaguers in corruption compared to the Major League Liars and Cheats.

      Recall Kerry's comment, supposed to be off -mike, that (paraphasing) "these are the lyingest bunch of crooks..." He nailed it -- long ago. Of course, many of us knew what he pointed out.

      Hastert should probably go. (I TRY to have an open mind and wait for the facts) If he is so dense that he can't remember what he said, or what he is doing, he has no business as Speaker. (True, Delay was a tough act to follow, but Hastert may have outdone him, since it's children we are talking about, not just shamefully screwing Indians, or forcing women to have abortions (Mariannas Island story).

      Worst Prez ever, worst Congress ever. "Do Nothing" has taken on a new meaning with the Foley scandal.

      They lie lie lie, and then the deny deny deny that they lied lied lied. Thanks to MMFA for shining the light on their despicable conduct and doublespeak!

      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.