I think the advertising agency, Lamar, are doing the right thing in not making the landowner's name public. A lot of those fundie nut-jobs have guns.
So I don't see at as 'poor journalism' at all. How about applying Occam's razor:
1. Landowner says he received multiple threats concerning the billboard that was posted on his property.
2. Advertising agency discreetly agrees to move billboard to their own property.
Or, what?
1. Atheists threaten landowner to make it look like religious nut-jobs did it.
So... some here think that this is all a hoax (i.e. that the landowner wasn't threatened by religious nut-jobs), because the journalists didn't interview the landowner? That says CT to me. Isn't it much more probable that the landowner and advertising agency are telling the truth? Even if the landowner was interviewed, how is that going to make things clearer? Presumably, the threats were made over the phone.