No, I understand the confusion, but the important point is that pedophiles are attracted to pre-sexual children - children who have not reached puberty. It is a very aberrant and sick attraction and causes much damage to children who are preyed upon by pedophiles.
It is not the same thing as middle-aged men leering at an 18 year-old (which may be disgusting or funny, but not as sick and harmful as pedophilia). (Or middle aged women at a Chippendale exhibition, for that matter).
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.
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.