I think there is a distinction between the medical definition and the dictionary definition, then. The dictionary doesn't indicate the younger age requirement. Therefore, while you are correct, according to the medical definition he was not a pedophile (assuming his attraction was only to older teenage males - a fact that is an assumption), by the dictionary definition he was. Therefore, a doctor would be wrong to call him a pedophile, but a reporter wouldn't.
No, a reporter who knew what he was talking about would not call foley a pedophile. It would be his duty to find out what the correct definition is, and not use sloppy, inexact definitions.
If you want to find out a definition for a chemistry term, you don't go to Websters you go to a chemistry source, and if you want to find an accurate definition of a medical/psych term, you go to a medical/psych dictionary.
But what is your point? Why do you want to call him a pedophile? There are plenty of other accurate words that would apply to him.