Two Men Charged in Horry County Child Exploitation Investigation
Michael Edward Baker and James Novick, 43, of Little River, face charges including sexual exploitation of a minor after an investigation by the Horry County Police Department's Internet Crimes Against Children unit.
3 reports on this incident · first at Sep 10, 2026, 7:52 p.m. ET
Earlier reports
Sep 11, 2026, 10:22 a.m. ET
Two Men Charged in Horry County Child Exploitation Investigation
Michael Edward Baker and James Novick, 43, of Little River, have been charged in connection with a child exploitation investigation in Horry County, according to reporting by WMBF News and ABC Columbia. The matter is at the charging stage and has not been resolved; no trial has occurred and no verdict has been reached.
The charges include sexual exploitation of a minor and second-degree distribution, the outlets reported. WMBF News reported that the government claims James Novick distributed child sexual abuse material, leading to charges of sexual exploitation of a minor and second-degree distribution. ABC Columbia reported that investigators state Michael Edward Baker distributed files of child sexual abuse material. The accounts differ on which defendant is alleged to have distributed the material.
The Horry County Police Department's Internet Crimes Against Children unit is investigating, according to WMBF News. The proceeding is at the charging stage. Charges are allegations and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
Sep 10, 2026, 7:52 p.m. ETFirst report
59-Year-Old Charged With Sexual Exploitation of a Minor
Michael Edward Baker, 59, has been charged with one count of sexual exploitation of a minor, according to abccolumbia.com. The proceeding is at the charging stage, and the matter is undecided; the case has not been resolved.
Investigators state that Baker distributed files of child sexual abuse material, abccolumbia.com reported.
The charge is an allegation. Baker has not been tried, and he is presumed innocent.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 111 Sept 2026, 14:22current
First published.
- Version 110 Sept 2026, 23:52current
First published.
- Version 111 Sept 2026, 14:56current
First published.
How we work
This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.
Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.
Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.
None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.