Are Whistleblowers Good or Bad For America?

Source: unlawfultermination.com

Whistleblowers are individuals or groups who report misconduct in an organization with the hope of stopping it. U.S. activist Ralph Nader coined the term to replace words with negative connotation like snitch, and it is meant to evoke the idea of a referee declaring foul play in a sporting event. Some whistleblowers, like Cynthia Cooper and Sherron Watkins (who exposed corporate scandals) and Coleen Rowley (who gave details concerning the FBI’s slow response to the 9/11 attacks) are seen as heroes. In fact, these three whistleblowers were jointly named Time magazine’s People of the Year in 2002. Others are not seen in a positive light. For example, Ryszard Kuklińsk was a Polish spy who snuck secret documents to the CIA in the hopes of avoiding war. In his own country about a third of the population considers him a traitor and his monument in Krakow has been vandalized numerous times. Given the diverse reactions people have to whistleblowers, how can one decide if they are good or bad for America?

On one hand, whistleblowers have helped shape American policy and have many very  important historical changes. For example, Ralph Nader’s consumer activism ensured that the “little guy” wasn’t squashed. Documentary filmmakers who help expose dysfunction within our country are also idolized. The film Super Size Me, directed by Morgan Spurlock, exposed the dangers in eating an exclusively fast-food diet and documented the health hazards that come with McDonald’s food. Spurlock’s film is believed to be the reason McDonald’s took the “Super Size” option off their menu. Another film, Food, INC. also focuses on food and discusses exploitation in the agricultural sector of the United States economy. These documentaries have received many awards and positive accolades. Even though these individuals have exposed cover-ups, half truths, or misconceptions, the American people generally meet them with positivity and even gratitude.

Source: innovativelyorganized.com

This is not always the case. As mentioned before in the example of Ryszard Kuklińsk, many whistleblowers are given less than star treatment, and sometimes they can be downright dangerous. For example, if a disgruntled government employee is upset with his salary and wants to “get back” at his boss, he can make up a spectacular lie and slander his agency. Often, the media will pick up his statements and sometimes Americans will have negative feelings towards the agency because of this slander. These feelings of the general public might continue on, even after the whistleblower has been exposed as a liar. People have tremendous power to slander and ruin companies or government agencies by claiming to be whistleblowers. Another area where whistleblowers can be bad for the country is where classified information is concerned. In the age of the computer, many gifted hackers are able to unlock classified information and share it via the Internet. While hacking could provide a whistleblower with information regarding financial cover-ups or government conspiracies, it could also give access to classified information that can be detrimental if exposed. If a whistleblower releases dangerous classified information, American lives might be in danger. The whistleblower might think he or she is qualified to determine what the American people should or shouldn’t know, but they might hurt citizens in making this decision without knowing all the facts.

Whether it’s “Deep Throat” exposing the Watergate Scandal or Ralph Nader discussing the lack of safety in cars, whistleblowers have helped shape American history. They have exposed dishonestly in the corporate and governmental sectors and help keep leaders honest. Despite their positives, there is great potential for whistleblowers to defame and slander where no offenses exist or hurt Americans by exposing classified information. Unfortunately, there is no constant to identify whistleblowers as good or bad. In the end, whistleblowers must be examined on a case-by-case basis to determine if what they expose is bad for the country or not.