090613childpornThis has been a week for disturbing news:

  • A prominent father and his adult son indicted on multiple charges of child pornography charges in Floyd County;
  • A former coach of high school and youth-oriented volleyball in Salem and the New River Valley entered a “no contest” plea on multiple charges of filming teenagers in the shower and changing clothes and now  faces 105 years in prison when he is sentenced in December;
  • A Roanoke mental health professional suspected of sending child pornography videos over the Internet is headed for a grand jury;

An old Chinese proverb says “may you live in interesting times.”  Interesting is one thing.  Disturbing is something else.

5 COMMENTS

  1. Several years ago my son was in a class at FCHS. I don’t remember the class or the teacher, but when he turned his computer on there were some very questionable images displayed. He got into trouble and their was an inquiry. I think their may have been a temporary suspension. He was found innocent when it was discovered to be a prank by one of his students.

    We live in a nation in which people are innocent until proven guilty. While it is very possible that all of these people are guilty, and the circumstances sound very incriminating, that is not a proven fact. Sensationalizing and publicizing these cases, as the media does, can ruin the life of someone who is found innocent. Let’s wait until they are found guilty before condemning them and shouting out their names. There will be plenty of time for that later if they are found guilty.

    • Jim

      I have simply reported the facts on three cases here: Charges in one, conviction on the second, and referral to a grand jury in the third.

      It is the job of media to report the news. I always follow a case to its conclusion. To correct you, one of the three cases cited is already a conviction with the defendant pleading “no contest” to the charges and now facing a possible sentence of up to 105 years. As a lifelong member of the media, I’m afraid I will have to challenge your claim that reporting the facts is sensationalizing. What I am reporting here is news, nothing more, nothing less. What I find disturbing is that there is so much crime news in the area to report.

  2. All this information is just as accessable to the public as it is to the media. Doug is not ‘sensationalizing’, he’s doing what he gets paid to.

    As for being found guilty by the public before being tried, that’s human nature and has been going on for centuries.

    No law enforcement department brings charges against a person without enough evidence to support the charges. If there’s enough evidence for an indictment, there’s involvement.

  3. I’m sorry, Doug and Jim, but I must respectfully disagree. Had this article had a one line text something like “Area residents accused of child pornography” then I would not have commented. But a large banner of the type this article has, is sensationalizing: at least in my mind.

    I know nothing about any of the people involved so have no opinion from that point of view. It was just a general comment on the overall impression I have of the media.

    • Your disagreement is noted but I believe you are missing the thrust of the above article. It concerned three different cases — one which is already partially resolved by a plea from the defendant. The information noted that, in one reference, a father and son were indicted on multiple counts of child pornography. That is a factual statement that makes no conclusions about innocence or guilt. Also, the article above named no one but linked to three different articles about separate cases which did use names. I wrote one of the three and I will cover that case until it is resolved. I did not write the other two.

Comments are closed.