Hey, Nevada journalists and news producers, beware! If you research or write tough stories, you could find your good name dragged through the public mud and your person dragged into state Supreme Court on no basis whatsoever.
I am referring to the very serious allegations against reporter and Face to Face producer Dana Gentry by Jeff Guinn and Aspen Financial Services. The things of which Gentry stands accused, were they to be proven, would be career-ending. Her accusers therefore ought to be required to produce credible evidence of their allegations before Ms. Gentry is required by the courts to provide any information.
The burden of evidence and information in this case should not be on Gentry. She is a reporter protected by Nevada’s news shield laws and has no obligation to provide information just because it is demanded of her by some unhappy, suspicious or vindictive person.
If Aspen-Guinn had any evidence of wrongdoing, or had a witness claiming to have knowledge of wrongdoing, they should have submitted that evidence or a supporting affidavit to the District Court in a private hearing as suggested by the District Court judge who rejected their plea.
Aspen-Guinn’s choice to instead move their circus act up to the high court in Carson City is appalling. The Supreme Court ought to reject this attempt at further smearing Gentry’s name through a transparent attempt at a change of venue and instruct Aspen-Guinn to go back and convince the District Court judge they have evidence that warrants reconsideration.
Here are the pertinent filings with the state Supreme Court: