<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>

<rss version="2.0"
 xmlns:blogChannel="http://backend.userland.com/blogChannelModule"
>

<channel>
<title>Media Matters - Mark Foley Scandal</title>
<link>http://mediamatters.org/tools/syndication/tag_rss/mark_foley_scandal</link>
<description>This link is for use by RSS-enabled software to retrieve Media Matters items matching the term: Mark Foley Scandal</description>
<language>en-US</language>
<copyright>Copyright 2008, Media Matters for America</copyright>

<item>
<title>&#x3C;em&#x3E;Wall  Street Journal&#x3C;/em&#x3E; story on Hastert  retirement left out his role in Mark Foley scandal</title>
<link>http://mediamatters.org/items/200708150010</link>
<description>In reports about former House Speaker Dennis Hastert&#x27;s announcement that he will 
not seek re-election in 2008, &#x3C;em&#x3E;The Wall 
Street Journal&#x3C;/em&#x3E; did not mention the controversy over Hastert&#x27;s 
handling of the House page scandal, in contrast with &#x3C;em&#x3E;The Washington Post&#x3C;/em&#x3E; and &#x3C;em&#x3E;The New York Times&#x3C;/em&#x3E;, which did note that 
Hastert was involved, but glossed over pertinent details.</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mediamatters.org/items/200708150010</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 15 Aug 2007 19:41:20 EST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>CNN, Fox ignored DOJ report&#x27;s vindication of CREW in controversy over Foley emails</title>
<link>http://mediamatters.org/items/200701250002</link>
<description></description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mediamatters.org/items/200701250002</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 24 Jan 2007 19:31:51 EST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>&#x3C;em&#x3E;NY Times&#x3C;/em&#x3E; uncritically reported Hastert statement about ethics committee report</title>
<link>http://mediamatters.org/items/200612110005</link>
<description>A &#x3C;em&#x3E;New York Times&#x3C;/em&#x3E;
article uncritically reported Dennis Hastert&#x27;s statement that the ethics
committee&#x27;s investigation into former Rep. Mark Foley&#x27;s conduct
toward congressional pages &#x22;found no evidence that anyone knew about the
sexually charged instant messages that led to Mr. Foley&#x27;s
resignation.&#x22; However, it did not report evidence found by the committee
that, in 2001, a former page provided Rep. Jim Kolbe with sexually explicit IMs
allegedly written by Foley.</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mediamatters.org/items/200612110005</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 11 Dec 2006 18:17:41 EST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>On CNN, Falwell declared Foley scandal &#x22;minuscule in comparison&#x22; to having &#x22;lived through Bill Clinton&#x22;; no follow-up from Zahn</title>
<link>http://mediamatters.org/items/200611040009</link>
<description></description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mediamatters.org/items/200611040009</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 3 Nov 2006 21:30:09 EST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Blitzer let Reynolds baselessly take credit for Foley resignation</title>
<link>http://mediamatters.org/items/200611030002</link>
<description>Wolf Blitzer failed to challenge
Rep. Thomas Reynolds&#x27;s claim that he forced then-Rep. Mark Foley&#x27;s
(R-FL) resignation after ABC News released sexually explicit Internet
communications between Foley and underage, male congressional pages. In fact,
House Speaker Dennis Hastert has denied that the House leadership was
responsible for Foley&#x27;s resignation, though he later claimed credit.

&#x3C;br /&#x3E;</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mediamatters.org/items/200611030002</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 2 Nov 2006 20:27:55 EST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Ignoring GOP handling of Foley scandal, Matthews suggested Republicans wouldn&#x27;t &#x22;have put up with&#x22; a Republican version of Clinton</title>
<link>http://mediamatters.org/items/200610310012</link>
<description>Chris Matthews declared that he
didn&#x27;t think Republicans &#x22;would have put up with&#x22; Bill Clinton&#x27;s affair with Monica Lewinsky because &#x22;I
think a lot of Republicans were very tough on Richard
Nixon.&#x22; But Republicans apparently &#x22;put up with&#x22; former Rep.
Mark Foley even after House leaders learned -- months and possibly years ago --
of potential misconduct on the part of Foley toward underage former House
pages.

&#x3C;br /&#x3E;</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mediamatters.org/items/200610310012</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 31 Oct 2006 14:54:01 EST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Hannity and Melanie Morgan cited &#x22;double standard&#x22; in media&#x27;s attention on Foley while ignoring Cindy Sheehan&#x27;s alleged participation in porn chat rooms</title>
<link>http://mediamatters.org/items/200610180008</link>
<description>On &#x3C;em&#x3E;Hannity &#x26;amp; Colmes&#x3C;/em&#x3E;, Sean Hannity joined authors Melanie Morgan and Catherine Moy in comparing Cindy Sheehan&#x27;s purported interest in online pornography to sexually explicit instant messages former Rep. Mark Foley allegedly sent to underage congressional pages. Morgan asserted that &#x22;[t]here&#x27;s a double standard and hypocrisy at work&#x22; in the fact that there was far greater attention and criticism focused on the Foley scandal.</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mediamatters.org/items/200610180008</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 18 Oct 2006 12:31:55 EST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Purporting to have learned from Capitol Police about House pages&#x27; &#x22;cavort[ing]&#x22; naked, Cal Thomas&#x27;s claims very similar to NewsMax report of pre-1983 conduct</title>
<link>http://mediamatters.org/items/200610160006</link>
<description></description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mediamatters.org/items/200610160006</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 16 Oct 2006 16:17:50 EST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Olbermann awarded Dobson &#x22;Worst Person in the World&#x22; &#x22;first for saying the Foley scandal was a joke and again for lying about having said that&#x22;</title>
<link>http://mediamatters.org/items/200610160003</link>
<description></description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mediamatters.org/items/200610160003</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 16 Oct 2006 13:40:01 EST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>&#x3C;em&#x3E;Wash. Post&#x3C;/em&#x3E; uncritically reported Shays&#x27;s phony excuse for bringing up Chappaquiddick</title>
<link>http://mediamatters.org/items/200610150004</link>
<description>&#x3C;em&#x3E;The Washington Post&#x3C;/em&#x3E; uncritically reported Rep. Chris Shays&#x27;s (R-CT) purported explanation for his reference to Chappaquiddick, claiming that he made his comment in the context of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy&#x27;s appearance with Shays&#x27;s opponent, Diane Farrell, whose calls for Speaker J. Dennis Hastert&#x27;s resignation over the Mark Foley scandal, Shays said, were made before the evidence of Hastert&#x27;s &#x22;serious mishandling&#x22; of the scandal had come out. But Shays himself was one of the first Republicans to comment on evidence that the House leadership knew of some of Foley&#x27;s alleged communications with pages. He was quoted in &#x3C;em&#x3E;The New York Times&#x3C;/em&#x3E; on October 1 -- two days after the scandal broke -- saying that if any House leaders &#x22;knew or should have known the extent of this problem, they should not serve in leadership.&#x22;</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mediamatters.org/items/200610150004</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 15 Oct 2006 16:55:40 EST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>In recent weeks, media outlets have misidentified as Democrats several Republicans facing scandal, poor poll numbers</title>
<link>http://mediamatters.org/items/200610130010</link>
<description></description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mediamatters.org/items/200610130010</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 13 Oct 2006 17:36:49 EST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>CNN&#x27;s Malveaux: Bush &#x22;lifeline&#x22; to Hastert followed Hastert&#x27;s &#x22;taking responsibility&#x22; for Foley scandal</title>
<link>http://mediamatters.org/items/200610130009</link>
<description>CNN&#x27;s Suzanne Malveaux reported that President Bush &#x22;threw&#x22; Speaker of the House J. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) &#x22;a lifeline for the speakership&#x22; when Hastert &#x22;came out publicly, taking responsibility&#x22; for the scandal surrounding former Rep. Mark Foley, but she ignored recent comments by Hastert that undermine his assertion that he is &#x22;taking responsibility&#x22; for the scandal.</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mediamatters.org/items/200610130009</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 13 Oct 2006 17:06:20 EST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>The press and Mark Foley, Part II</title>
<link>http://mediamatters.org/items/200610120016</link>
<description></description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mediamatters.org/items/200610120016</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 12 Oct 2006 19:42:58 EST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Dobson baselessly claimed &#x3C;em&#x3E;Media Matters&#x3C;/em&#x3E; &#x22;spun&#x22; his Foleygate comments</title>
<link>http://mediamatters.org/items/200610120007</link>
<description>Focus on the Family&#x27;s James C. Dobson baselessly claimed that &#x3C;em&#x3E;Media Matters for America&#x3C;/em&#x3E; engaged in &#x22;sp[i]n&#x22; by quoting his on-air remark that Republican former Rep. Mark Foley&#x27;s sexually explicit instant messages to a male former House page &#x22;turned out to be what some people are now saying was a -- sort of a joke by the boy and some of the other pages.&#x22; But Dobson did not explain what the purported spin was.</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mediamatters.org/items/200610120007</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 12 Oct 2006 14:37:18 EST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>A special &#x3C;em&#x3E;Media Matters for America&#x3C;/em&#x3E; report: debunking the Foley myth machine</title>
<link>http://mediamatters.org/items/200610110009</link>
<description>The scandal surrounding the sexually explicit electronic communications former Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) allegedly sent to underage former congressional pages -- and the House Republican leadership&#x27;s alleged cover-up of Foley&#x27;s behavior -- have produced a wave of misinformation. To aid members of the media in covering the scandal, &#x3C;em&#x3E;Media Matters for America&#x3C;/em&#x3E; has compiled a list of the top myths, falsehoods, and baseless assertions surrounding the controversy.</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mediamatters.org/items/200610110009</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 11 Oct 2006 16:59:30 EST</pubDate>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>