I have no problem believing her. Why not? She's not an anonymous source.
I wade into these murky waters because I am convinced there is a fundamental misunderstanding about the importance for a free democratic society to have access to official information and the role that vital access has in its continued existence. As far as I know the unnamed source- and I would have requested anonymity too, given the environment- may have broken the pinkie promise for silence or left before it went into effect. The owner is upset at the attention and necessary response to LE queries, but the source got no fame and obviously spoke out with trepidation. Why would there have even been that discussion around silence to begin with is concerning to me. She could have come out early on and said we know nothing, he was not a customer, thank you very much, as incredulous as that sounds given the circumstances. Or, we are reviewing our transactions, etc etc. and will get back through our spokesperson.
I don’t get the resentment. Unless she has something to hide in order to avoid inquiries or has been led to believe that by divulging something she would create a problem that I can’t imagine. But now, the only obvious issue to me is that she has thrown a former employee under the bus and taken refuge behind local LE.
Stress? Local politics?
I can empathize even more now with Steve G’s desperation in the days and weeks he could not get any information.
The gag is controversial and may not be upheld. It will have a chilling effect on any and everyone who has knowledge and information that should be available. JMO. That overarching gag is what misinformation, rumor and innuendo thrives on.
And importantly, to begin with, an anonymous source is not a disembodied mystery spirit, but a person with information who is vetted by responsable news organizations. The protected source has to meet various criteria and its use must be evaluated and approved by both a Sr reporter and Editor. If they were tricked- we will hear about that, too.
Do we really want to give up rights and access to vital information from official sources and squash speech just because it is uncomfortable to the denizens of a small community to be beset by social media or purveyors of dubious, morbid entertainment? I understand that they want this tragedy to go away, but it won’t. Secrecy and mistrust of outsiders will only make things worse.
No arguing there may be the need for a more limited restriction, but this is way over reach. IMO
Supporting LE or the Judicial system does not require blind acquiescence or the belief that it is infallible. Their interaction and timely updates with the Press is a sacred public service duty, too.
Where would WS be without access to open information?
IMO MOO
This person has made it clear:
Conversations with the officials involved in criminal cases helps journalists understand the nuances of legal arguments and the technical steps of court proceedings so their coverage can be fair and thorough, said media coalition member and Idaho Press Club President Betsy Russell.
“We’re not lawyers for the most part, nor are our readers, and those explanations can help make sure that inaccurate information isn’t spread about what’s happening in our halls of justice,” Russell said.
Twenty-two regional and national news organizations have formed a coalition to ask a judge to narrow a gag order in the case of a man accused of killing four University of Idaho students.
apnews.com