Bad news for former SE

I understand what you're saying Mark, but if he was asked why he was not working in Montana anymore and he lied about it, then the ME has cause to fire him based on that. Innocent or not.

Whether he committed a crime or not, I don't know. He did, however, exhibit poor judgement. That enough, in this economic climate and the crossroads most newspapers are facing, probably means this guy isn't long for Bristol.

Again, I don't know if he's innocent or not. The newspaper did the right thing by writing the story, and the biggest loser here is the newspaper's reputation. The way things are going in this industry, we don't need more arrows flying at us. We need less.

 

Being a court reporter isn't that hard. Everything is sourced and it's not hard to write something that doesn't condemn anyone. Also, I never used the word "allegedly" because it has connotations that imply guilt in our society.

For example, instead of:

"Teacher Sally Schmoe allegedly had sexual relations with a 10-year-old boy while he was in her class."

You would write:

"Police arrested Sally Schmoe after investigating a report that she had sexual relations with a 10-year-old boy while he was in her class."

It's even better if you have a police officer who gives you a quote about evidence pointing to the relationship and can let the officer say it in his/her own words.

 

I understand your thoughts, Mark. And, keep in mind that I'm believing the Bristol ME didn't know about this issue before he hired Cnockaert.

But something like this is Exhibit A for why it is sometimes better to be forthright in the first place. Then, if/when the past does come out, nobody is unnecessarily surprised, or made a fool of. And then maybe, just maybe, you might even have an ally and a support system at a time when you probably could use one, in that very person who, perhaps, was able to see past any problems to all those potential positives that you mention.

It was probably unbeknown to Cnockaert, but the Bristol ME actually is just such a person -- willing to take a risk if he believes in something or someone, and willing to back you up if it's deserved or the right thing to do.

I'm sure he's none too pleased to be suddenly having to handle this in a way that appears to be after the fact.

 

How often will an officer go that far out on a limb? He/she could wind up being sued if they say something incorrectly. Everytime I've had dealings with a police agency, I was ALWAYS referred to the official department spokesperson.

If the guy was asked why he was no longer working in Montana, all he has to say is "they decided to make changes". He isn't legally obligated to go into details over something that might cause a great deal of embarrassment. The ME in Bristol is certainly welcome to pick up the phone and ask questions himself if he wants to know. Isn't that what we are all trained in J-school to do?

Ask anyone who has ever been fired from any job in any field and it's a rather uncomfortable situation to discuss. All the moreso if it is in the public eye or involves even the slightest degree of misconduct. Yet we all know such things happen and people have to pick up the pieces and move on as best they can.

I'm sure no one is sleeping to well over all of this tonight.

 

In an ideal world, I would agree with you. We've all been taught to tell the truth. But what about cases --- and am NOT saying this is or is not one --- where the truth is so ugly that to speak it would almost invariably lead to discrimination?

We'd all like to thing that people across the table will be open-minded and willing to overlook stuff, if the other qualifications are there. But, sadly, we all know that's not always the case. I have a friend who has a criminal and prison record from more than a decade ago. He never tells anyone outside his closest circle about it. If someone finds out (and so far, that hasn't happened), so be it. But he's not going to put it out there for them. I respect his position.

Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. If he tells the truth, he substantially ups the risk of not getting hired at all. If he doesn't, he runs the risk of an embarrassment later on. I'm honestly not sure which is worse.

 

This could work, and it might...as long as there's no chance of anything more about it coming up or out.

In other words, there are no pending, or possible, charges, allegations, court cases or lawsuits, or any other such thing that anybody could chance upon, stumble over or report on...

That obviously was not the case here, and you can bet Cnockaert knew that, and knew this could happen, when he came to Bristol.

 

Well of course an officer isn't going to say it unless it's the official spokesperson. Anything that an officer tells a reporter is automatically thrown out of court. So if an officer tells you that he has a napkin that the thief used to blow his nose at the crime scene, most judges will throw out that napkin as evidence.

But a PIO or prosecutor should be able to say "After a thorough investigation, evidence warranted the arrest of Joe Schmoe."

Also, unless they've been indicted, a cops reporter shouldn't put that the person was charged with anything. A lot of reporters will write that a person was charged with 4 counts of robbery after being arrested for those counts of robbery because a cop will tell you that's the charge, but a charge comes in court, so you have to put that the person was arrested on suspicion of robbery.

 

I don't agree with a single word of those three sentences.

In fact, I'm still shocked I could read the last two after that first one. I have no idea what to say to that.

 

I don't know what to tell you buckweaver. I certainly found that being a crime and courts reporter came naturally to me. I had great sources and good relationships with those sources, which made my job even easier.

Sorry you don't agree with the other two sentences, but my bosses in both print and television were pretty happy that I knew how to properly write crime/courts stories that didn't condemn someone and never used the word allegedly. Sorry you disagree with them.

 

Yet you felt the need to say something. :

And she isn't the first to say that allegedly isn't recommended in copy. Same way at my paper. Allegedly is a weak word designed to protect reporters from a potential libel suit. Only it doesn't even do that.

 

Not getting into a pissing match; this is not the thread for that.

Being a cops/courts reporter is NOT easy. I'll stand by that any day.

 

You mean like Casey Anthony?

She hasn't been convicted of anything yet either? Are you saying there should be no stories on her? Or Melissa Huckaby?

Isn't this coming from the same guy who twice during football season posted that a friend of his close to the Steelers told him that Ben Roethlisberger had suffered season-ending injuries?
I realize the difference between a potential sports injury and a possible murder, but isn't the premise - reporting before anything it is official, either (criminal) convicted or (medical) diagnosed) - the same?
Yes, one has more serious implications than the other, but the premise is the same.
In the case of asking about a potential season-ending injury, there was no truth to it. It was nothing more than rumor. In the case of the Anthony, Huckaby and the SE there is a legal paper trail and more than enough for a story.