Lawyer continues attack on respected journalist, abuses court system for smear campaign

Tuesday, April 17, 2012 | 1:17 p.m.

The character assassins are back, using the tactics of Joe McCarthy and the same level of subtlety, to smear a journalist with an impeccable reputation.

This is an all-hands-on-deck moment for the Fourth Estate and a seminal moment in press freedom for Nevada. If the state Supreme Court enables these reprehensible tactics, the justices will declare that baseless accusations against media types are a sanctioned method to slow down aggressive reporting.

Just a couple of weeks after I last wrote about this, attorney John Bailey, acting on behalf of Jeff Guinn, has responded with a brief in Carson City.

I won’t rehash all the details, nor will I repeat the revolting and false insinuations that Bailey includes in his brief. Bailey and Guinn want the justices to force my “Face to Face” producer, Dana Gentry, to answer questions about charges of supposed corruption for which they have no evidence. And, worse, Bailey either knowingly or ignorantly falsely claims in his brief that he and Guinn “have a very good idea of what evidence is likely in Ms. Gentry's possession.”

Really? Then why, pray tell, has Bailey refused to provide any evidence for his allegations of Gentry being corrupt? Because there is none.

Bailey says Gentry should simply reply to his subpoena, “I have no such information.” And she could.

But that is just what he wants to open the door to ask more McCarthy-like questions and it would never end. It is transparent, outrageous and unconscionable.

If they had evidence of Gentry being compromised in her reporting, Bailey and Guinn surely would present it to the justices, right? Then do so.

What’s that I hear? Nothing? That’s what I thought.

No one could argue that if lawyers presented evidence that a reporter was being paid off or had accepted gifts that influenced his or her reporting that it should be exposed. But that is not what is happening here.

This is a vindictive abuse of the court system by a man and his enabling lawyer – when do attorneys have an obligation to stop a client from pursuing such tactics? – who simply do not like what Gentry has reported, yet have never questioned the accuracy of her reports.

If the justices do not smack this down in the most thorough and devastating way, the message they will send is that this kind of character assassination is just fine. That will be a sad day in Nevada.

As for Bailey and Guinn, I ask what was once asked of Tail Gunner Joe: At long last, sirs, have you no sense of decency?