,
5 tweets,
1 min read
Read on Twitter
It does seem like the incentives for whistleblowing are a bit perverse, because if you do it the proper, legal way, you become fairer game for journalists to identify you, whereas if you just leak the same stuff to journalists, we’ll generally conceal the source and protect you.
Like, if the whistleblower had just broken the rules and talked to a reporter under condition of confidentiality, they’d probably be a hell of a lot safer than they are right now. latimes.com/politics/story…
They’d also be just one anonymous source among (presumably) many, rather than... The Whistleblower.
On the other hand (speaking solely as a craven reporter here), filing a whistleblower report does make this a process story that touches many institutions and is easier for news outlets to cover blow-by-blow, rather than just the latest of a million ephemeral controversies.
Plus there’s kind of a martyrdom element to whistleblowing that tends to give those stories a little more political heft compared to when the walls are just filled with anonymice.
