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.
People understand what that means - and the gravity of what it entails.
Even though a technician's dictionary not commonly available has a more strict definition, normal language dictionaries echo that it is the correct word to use. In addition to that, it was what the reporters audience understands the word to mean (and given that many people do not have access to Medical Dictionaries, what the books on their shelf would echo). The target audience is to whom a reporter is writing. That is why our news is so poor here in that the audience whats sensationalism. That also means choosing words that are understood to the general public in the forms they are understood. Pediophile is not understood by its strict medical definition in the general public, but rather by its looser dictionary defnition. Therefore, the term applies and the reporter was right to us it.
If the report was in a medical journal, it would be incorrect to use the term. I don't think the above is a medical journal.