How does whistleblower imply neutrality? Neutrality on what? Does a lack of neutrality about an unrelated issue exclude one from being a whistleblower on all things?
If my new boss is an asshole, and he also orders me to lie to the government, am I not a whistleblower if my reasons for reporting the company are mostly to get revenge on my asshole boss?
Shouldn't it be what is reported that we care about, not what failings we can accuse the whistleblower of having (and as a human being, they will certainly have)?
Personally I've noticed with Snowden is that nobody really attacks what he said, they attack his perceived motivations, like that somehow matters worth a damn given the accuracy of his information.
This requires that the thing being reported is in fact wrongdoing. If you expose something that is innocent and innocuous, then you are - by definition - not a whistle-blower.
So when a person is called "a whistle-blower" the person using that term is expressing the opinion that the subject of the exposure is in fact 1) did occur, and 2) an act of wrongdoing.
Plenty of people have criticized Wikileaks and Assange for not following a 'responsible' style of disclosure of leaked materials (usually thought of as aiming to minimize collateral damage such as spies operating in the field having their cover blown). Contrast their behaviour to how the Snowden stories were broken for example.
Of course it's more nuanced than that but I don't think it's right to say the criticism is all just shooting the messenger or character assassination.
> am I not a whistleblower if my reasons for reporting the company are mostly to get revenge on my asshole boss
You are a whistleblower, because he is your boss. It doesn't seem Trump is this persons boss; In fact, this persons boss may be someone opposed to Trump and quite happy about the accusations. The "neutrailty" comes from the percieved risk in taking on someone who has power over you.
> Shouldn't it be what is reported that we care about
I don't believe I disputed this? But yes, by definition, every whistle-blower ever has been accusing some person or entity of wrongdoing.
> You are a whistleblower, because he is your boss. It doesn't seem Trump is this persons boss; In fact, this persons boss may be someone opposed to Trump and quite happy about the accusations.
So a doctor who is asked to defraud Medicare by a CEO of a hospital is not a whistle-blower because his supervising physician thinks the CEO is an asshole?
> The "neutrailty" comes from the percieved risk in taking on someone who has power over you.
Who's perception is relevant here? Yours? This whistle-blowers? Is it your opinion that Snowden did not "per[ceive] risk"? The Ukraine whistle-blower? But more importantly, how is perceived risk indicative of neutrality?
And for that matter, again, neutrality about what? Neutral is an adjective, what noun do you intend for it to describe?
depends on the balance of power, I have no idea what that is wrt a hospital CEO and a doctor, nor what governing bodies are.
A person who reports a crime (of theft/bribery/fraud) to the police is not normally called a "whistle-blower"; Hence the word has implications when used instead of "accuser"
> Who's perception is relevant here
an outside observer.
> how is perceived risk indicative of neutrality
becasue they have nothing to gain from it - they are hence impartial.
Assange isn't a whistle-blower. He is a third party that was given classified information.
Manning wasn't a whistle-blower either, he (at the time) was a leaker and didn't go through any of the official whistle-blower procedures to shield himself from prosecution. He also just data dumped everything he could find instead of leaking specific things.
Whistleblower: One who reveals wrongdoing within an organization to the public or to those in positions of authority.
By that definition everyone I listed is a whistleblower.
Also, FYI, you should use proper pronouns regardless of how they identified at the time. It's still a form of misgendering and unnecessarily brings up the fact that they are transgender.
Key point there. Assange was not in the organization. At best he would be considered media in this case.
Manning did not follow the proper steps to blow the whistle through the chain of command, and therefore was not given the legal protection that others would be. He didn't care what was leaked, he just wanted to do damage.
Whistleblowing is about revealing specific wrongdoing, not data dumping all sorts of sensitive and damaging information that had nothing to do with the wrongdoing.
So if there were a defense contractor who noticed embezzlement in nuclear missile program, but then dumped all of the plans and schematics for the weapons system on the internet, should that person experience no consequences? If someone was trying to expose medical malpractice just dumped thousands of innocent and people's medical records, should that be ok?
Manning's case would've been infinitely stronger had she just leaked the helicopter video or other information that she reasonably believed were war crimes.
