Steven L. Katz, Dan Meyer, Paul D. Thacker and Mandy Smithberger look on as event moderator Ellen Shearer introduces Thursday’s panel on whistleblower reporting.
(Jennifer-Leigh Oprihory/Medill News Service)
WASHINGTON – Experts from the Washington accountability community sounded off on the dynamics, ethics and future prospects of government whistleblowing during a June 6 panel sponsored by the Medill National Security Journalism Initiative.
The event, moderated by initiative co-director and Medill professor Ellen Shearer, gave audience members a crash course in whistleblower reporting.
Pentagon Director of Whistleblowing and Transparency Dan Meyer said reporters need to remember “the unique situation” their whistleblower sources are in.
“A prudential reporter, a dutiful reporter, a reporter who cares about the people they’re interacting with, will seek to understand the pressures that are on whistleblowers,” said Meyer, whose program is part of the Defense Department Inspector General’s Office.
Meyer called whistleblowers “the canaries in the coal mine,” with issues they raise increasing the public’s awareness of problems in government.
Meyer said that whistleblowing is a federal employee’s obligation rather than a rebellious decision, mandated by an executive order signed by President George H.W. Bush. But whistleblowers can be punished for improper methods of disclosure rather than for the actual act of disclosure, with everything from disclosure timing to what kinds of documents can be disclosed being regulated, he said.
“How you report the corruption as a whistleblower leads to more or less liabilities on your part,” he said.
Thursday’s event continued a dialogue on whistleblower reporting that started with a panel hosted by the Medill National Security Journalism Initiative in May.
(Jennifer-Leigh Oprihory/MEDILL NEWS SERVICE)
Mandy Smithberger, an investigator and researcher for Rep. Jackie Speier, D-Calif., and a staff lead for the Congressional Watchdog Caucus, discussed measures journalists can take to safeguard whistleblowers.
“Even in the cases where there is justice for the whistleblower and they are reinstated, their career is never the same, and the bureaucrats who retaliate against them largely go unpunished,” she said.
Smithberger advised journalists to listen carefully and express sympathy, especially in early meetings. She also advised reporters to be patient in working with whistleblowers because neurological trauma can impair their ability to recollect occurrences on an accurate timeline or to pinpoint specific details.
But being sensitive to the stresses under which whistleblowers operate doesn’t mean accepting their stories without fact-checking.
“If you only walk away with one thing today, I want you to walk away with the importance of being able to separate your source from the information that they’re providing,” she said.
Paul D. Thacker and Mandy Smithberger advised journalists on how to pursue responsible whistleblower reporting. (Jennifer-Leigh Oprihory/MEDILL NEWS SERVICE)
Smithberger also warned journalists to be conscious of the individuals’ pasts, which can be unsavory, and any pertinent motivations for the whistleblowing that might factor into their credibility.
“When you’re vetting them I would urge you to ask them what will be used against them to decide about how to think about the attribution,” she said. “Assure them that every nasty detail of their divorce is going to come out, and any other information that can be used to discredit them will be used as ammunition to decimate their career.”
By the same token, she said that workplace histories of mental health or personality disorders can be evidence of arbitrary diagnoses made as a tool to discredit and silence whistleblowers.
Smithberger also emphasized reporters’ obligation to keep whistleblowers informed about the potential consequences of their disclosures.
“Some whistleblowers will put their cause above their own well-being,” she said.
Finally, she recommended keeping whistleblower identities as vague as possible for their safety.
Steven L. Katz, an attorney who’s done investigative work on the Hill, defended the need for whistleblowing in democracies.
“Wars and whistleblowers have a lot in common,” Katz said. “Why? Every time they happen, they make us realize how much we don’t know.”
Katz said that democracies need whistleblowing in order to preserve “freedom of speech and dissent, … public disclosures of wrongdoing without retaliation and reprisal, … the rule of law and equal justice, and due process.”
Paul D. Thacker, law fellow at Harvard University’s Safra Center for Ethics, spoke of the potential conflict between whistleblowing that involves releasing documents to the press and internal whistleblowing procedures on the part of government entities.
According to Thacker, while a whistleblower may seek out members of the press to arrange disclosures according to his or her own desired timeline, such a move may impede internal investigations and thereby undermine government efforts to enforce self-accountability.
Like Smithberger, Thacker said journalists should be wary when vetting whistleblowers’ motivations.
“Am I being used because this person is trying to win the internal knife-fight inside their agency or inside their company?” he told the audience to question. “Are they really trying to do what’s good?”
Thacker also stressed the importance of cultivating official sources, since they could turn into whistleblowers in the future.
“Never think that these things need to be quickie-like one-night stands,” he said. “Always try to look at them as long-term romances.”
