Sports reporter, Bristol, VA

Careful. You might get a scathing e-mail from Mr. Foster.

HE'S A MAN! HE'S 40! HE USED TO WORK FOR PEOPLE MAGAZINE AND THE OREGONIAN!!!!

 

But why take a chance on someone with such baggage? Surely they had a bunch of people apply even if it is a Media General shop.

 

Maybe Jim was by far the best in the field, journalistically speaking. And if you believe him to be innocent, or at least, that the case against him is weak, and you have the guts/courage to take such a risk, especially knowing that that person would probably be loyal and hard-working for you for life just because they appreciate that chance taken, well, why not?

From the sound of it, that defense attorney fully expected to win the case. I don't know the facts of the case, other than what everyone else has read, too, but maybe the editor knew more, or at least, believed he did, and thought justice would be served in favor of Cnockaert.

I have to think Cnockaert believed that, too. Otherwise, why not take a deal that would have not required a minimum of five years in jail, as he apparently had the opportunity to do?

Foster's a hard-hitting journalist, unafraid to go against the grain. It's part of what made him a good investigative reporter back in the day. When hiring a sports editor, he'd have been looking for a good journalist before a sports fan.

And journalistically speaking, Cnockaert certainly has been good for the paper. He was a multiple award-winner in APSE contests last year, for both writing, and design, I believe. And unless you've worked for him, you can't really say what kind of editor he is, either in terms of his work, or in the staff's eyes.

 

Of course, he was fired from his previous job for viewing pornography at work, which you seem to have left out of your posts on the subject. Regardless of whether he's innocent of the child porn charges, you can't view porn at work. If you do, you're done. Unemployable. Period.

And he knew it was wrong, which is why he used one in a different department. He can claim it's a compulsion or an addiction all he wants, he's still creepy.

Wasn't he fired from Ann Arbor, too?

I'm sure Cnockaert appreciates you taking up his cause, though.

 

visalia, exactly. I don't care how good he supposedly is in a news room, that kind of behavior is inexcusable.

 

There's good people there. Why would you use the term "escaped"? Not being a dick, just curious.

 

It's good to know APSE awards outweigh two firings for cause and a felony conviction, though.

 

I'm not taking up anyone's cause, just trying to see how this could have gone on, and be a little broad-minded about it.

I don't know what happened in Ann Arbor. It would be wrong and creepy if he viewed any kind of porn at work (or anywhere). But, it is known to be a very addictive habit, which is why I suggested that perhaps he'd been in treatment for it. I don't know whether he was or wasn't, but as I said, I wouldn't rush to judgment without knowing everything.

And if he was guilty, and knew or believed that he'd be so quickly and summarily found so, why wouldn't a deal have been struck, especially if that would have kept him out of jail completely?

That's something I can't get past very easily, because, in this sort of situation, this is the kind of stand one takes, usually, only when you know/believe something to the core of your being. Isn't it?

 

Visalia, you're right. Got to have those priorities in order. Again, it just amazes me that he kept getting jobs. When confronted in Bozeman Cnockaert ADMITTED to viewing the pornography and was fired on the spot. Yet Foster saw fit to hire him.

 

Again: Fired twice. For cause. Should have been done in this business.

And I'll save my sympathy and open-mindedness for people who haven't been convicted of viewing child pornography. Shit like that doesn't happen by accident.

Also, I've never known someone to be so addicted to porn that they felt the need to view it at work. Twice. Buy some DVDs. Or magazines. Wait eight hours and watch that shit at home.

I'm out.

EDIT: This post was directed to WriteThinking.

 

Right again, Visalia. How anyone could defend a lowlife that watched CHILD PORNOGRAPHY is beyond me.

 

Uh..I got that. :

And I understand your take. Really, I do. You shouldn't necessarily mistake my thinking this through, and discussing it a little, for sympathy.

I just tend not to be judgmental, in general, though, weighing things and trying to see all sides/possibilities, as likely or unlikely as they may be.

I actually think it's part of what makes me a good journalist. Maybe not a good message board participant, but, again, just trying to see how this could have happened...twice, as you said.