Is it possible there wasn’t anything to talk about? We are assuming that they had something to say but didn’t because of an NDA, but are we considering that they might not have anything to say?
If something illegal is happening, California law provides that NDAs are not enforceable when in conjunction with some criminal acts. Furthermore, NDAs can’t protect against a witness being subpoenaed or being required to testify in a court proceeding.
California whistleblower laws are also quite clear on the matter. It isn’t “getting out of control.”
It’s very possible that a reporter is using the existence of an NDA to imply something that can’t be confirmed or refuted. Remember, reporters are ambitious and have inherent bias as well. Just because someone doesn’t want to go on the record doesn’t mean they are acknowledging a problem. They might just genuinely not want to talk to reporters.
The assertion in the excerpt is not that people didn't have anything to say. It's that the anonymous sources declined to put their name to their claims:
> It was difficult to find employees to go on the record.
If something illegal is happening, California law provides that NDAs are not enforceable when in conjunction with some criminal acts. Furthermore, NDAs can’t protect against a witness being subpoenaed or being required to testify in a court proceeding.
California whistleblower laws are also quite clear on the matter. It isn’t “getting out of control.”
It’s very possible that a reporter is using the existence of an NDA to imply something that can’t be confirmed or refuted. Remember, reporters are ambitious and have inherent bias as well. Just because someone doesn’t want to go on the record doesn’t mean they are acknowledging a problem. They might just genuinely not want to talk to reporters.