The Washington Times, not exactly a liberal rag, called for Hastert to resign in an editorial.

Here is the link.

Well . . . only if it bothers her.

Sexual harrassment is more a crime of perception than anything else.

Oddly enough, if a 30 year old woman IMs her 27 year old male secretary its generally not regarded the same.

You are absolutely right, but the IMs I read were not about harassment.

The easy manner in which the youngster wrote, and the length of time he stayed online, indicate he appreciated the (possibly rare) occasion to talk openly with an adult male about sexual topics. He could have logged off at any time.

He was not under the supervision of the Congressman; rather he was worried his mom might see the conversation.

Nevertheless, it is inappropriate for any Congressman (male or female) to be talking to any Page (past or present, male or female) in any slightly suggestive manner.

That's a newspaper. They don't have to worry about the FCC and equal opportunity. They can be editorialize all they want.

And, there's a huge difference between a report and an editorial.

Updates from the Newspapers Editorial/Op-Ed pages Cartoons:
http://cagle.com/news/FoleyFoibles/main.asp

True, but what you had said was: The folks I've heard or read about saying Hastert should resign are politicians -- Republicans and Democrats, not news organizations. While The Washington Times can indeed editorialize all it wants, and while the game rules are different for print news and broadcast news, it is still a news organization, not a politician. Thus, The Washington Time is a news organization that has called for Hastert's resignation.

why are the rules different for TV versus print?

Because the airwaves are considered public property that TV and radio stations are given a license by the federal government to use in the public interest. This being the case, broadcast news outlets are not supposed to "take sides," but are supposed to allow equal time to various positions. Unlike print news outlets, they are regulated by the FCC.

The rules are also somewhat different for broadcase news outlets like local news shows or ABC, CBS or NBC that do use the public airwaves as compared to purely cable or satellite news outlets like CNN and Fox, which don't use the public airwaves and which viewers pay to receive.

but they don't give equal time, I've never once see anyone do that, not even during the debates, they usually only have two candidates

plus, they usually just show their story and then that is it, there is usually not even any follow up

Well, probably more often than not, races in this country only have two candidates. And if you're talking about presidential debates, they aren't hosted by the TV netwokrs, they're only broadcast by the networks. The host organization and the respective major campaigns decide on who's going to be invited.

I can remember many years ago, local stations provided a few minutes at the end of each broadcast for whoever wanted to speak -- whether a candidate or an "ordinary citizen" -- to do so. I haven't seen that much lately; perhaps debates have taken their place.

In any event, if you think a local station isn't doing right in this regard, you can complain to the FCC for consideration when the station's license is up for renewal. With newspapers, you have no one but the paper to complain to.

Thankfully, (although you may not agree) the Communications Act, as amended, does allow the on air networks to disallow (or disregard) candidates and parties who have no reasonable chance of being a factor in any given race.

Otherwise the debates would be overrun by every little interest group who calls itself a party.

BTW, thanks to MysticCat for the explaination, which is right on the money.

well that's good, but the two parties on there now are just coalitions of special interest groups

but i really didn't mean just in elections, like sometimes they'll do a piece and then won't say anything else about it ever and I'm at home like WTF? riots in Europe? Coup in Thailand? Nope, something about illegal immigrints or something. :confused:

Sorry, but I don't under your comments and question.

Are we ever going to stop hearing about Foley? Or do we have to wait until November? I mean, he did a very bad thing. Do what needs to be done to him. But I don't like how the news keeps dragging this story on ...

It will last at least until the elections, especially since control of Congress is potentially riding on a few select races and this situation can have an impact on that balance. The particular story itself may be worn out, but the outcome of the election is much bigger.

i actually met this guy a few months ago.

this story just freaked me out... can't believe stuff like this still exists

Interesting blog from site better known for its Op-Ed cartoon postings:
http://www.cagle.com/news/blog/

Current library of Foley related Op-Ed cartoons:
http://www.cagle.com/news/FoleyFoibles/main.asp

http://www.cagle.com/politicalcartoons/

Okay, I'll readilt admit it. This is a low blow to post, but I just can't resist the temptation. I'll do some penance later.

Foley and Scientology: disgraced congressman linked to CoS?

I mean why do they keep bouncing around. No updates from Iraq are on world news tonight. What they spoke of today will not be spoken of tomorrow, most likely, and the longest will stay for a week or two. All this stuff is going on, and all they are talking about is the scam of the day or who is being sued or whatever.

Don't worry, I'm sure ABC will do a special sometime this week about how Bush is destroying the Middle East, and how the terrorists would be nicer to us if we'd leave them alone, etc.

Don't know if anyone's discussed his catholic priest that admitted to playing with him as a little boy.

The priest is sitting pretty on a tropical island I think.

-Rudey