Whistleblowing and Critical Thinking

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Click Here To Order Now!

Whistleblowing and Critical Thinking

Table of Contents

Introduction
Edward Snowden v. Catharine Gun v. Lowell Bergman
Civil Disobedience in Relation to Whistleblowing
Whistleblowing as Representation of Critical Thinking
Conclusion
Works Cited

Introduction

The term whistleblowing first surfaced in the late years of the twentieth century. The concept is simple: when an employee sees their company or fellow colleagues partaking in deliberate wrongdoing that concerns public interest, they blow the whistle by reporting the misdeed to an authorized person or organization (Bazzichelli 241). Whistleblowing requires no small amount of critical thinking an employee who is about to blow the whistle has to critically evaluate the information they have and how it might affect society. Thus, it can be said that effective whistleblowing should be built, first and foremost, on a critical assessment of the facts and details of each individual case.

Edward Snowden v. Catharine Gun v. Lowell Bergman

Edward Joseph Snowden is a former employee of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and National Security Agency (NSA). He can be considered a prime example of whistleblowing Snowden exposed unethical practices of governmental structures and suffered serious repercussions for it. As he was working for the American intelligence services, Edward Snowden became increasingly disillusioned with their activities. Therefore, he decided to publish information that would reveal to people the truth about U.S. government agencies. In 2013, he contacted journalists from The Guardian and The Washington Post, giving them information about the PRISM program a set of measures to secretly collect information through the Internet, messages, and calls (Davies para. 1-3). The program was considered top secret, but Snowden had a top-level clearance which allowed him to contraband the relevant documents directly from his office. In the United States, Snowden was accused of espionage and theft of state property and has been put on the international wanted list.

Official Secrets tells the real story of Catherine Gun, who gave the media a secret letter from the NSA to the British authorities. In 2003, she worked as an interpreter for the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) the British intelligence agency responsible for information intelligence and the protection of British state secrets (Mowbray para. 3). She came into possession of a letter according to which the agency tapped the phones and read the mail of six UN delegates from Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Mexico, Guinea, and Pakistan. At the time, these specific countries could influence the U.S.s decision to invade Iraq. It was assumed that their negotiations and correspondence would make it clear to the U.S. authorities how these countries would vote on the military operation in Iraq (Mowbray para. 3). Gun took the letter to the British edition of The Observer, the Sunday supplement to the liberal newspaper The Guardian. An international scandal arose around American and British intelligence agencies and their interests in Iraq, although some claimed that the letter was fake.

Katherine Gun later revealed her identity, proving the existence and authenticity of the note. Compared to Snowden, Gun was in a better position at the beginning of the scandal, as it was not known who relied on the letter to the media. Still, when the need to confirm that the information was true, Gun put her whole life on the line and defended public interests with her admission. Similarly to Snowden, Gun suffered the consequences of her actions even more so than the former, as Snowden managed to escape the U.S. and flee first to Hong Kong, then to Russia (Davies para.3). Meanwhile, Guns whole life collapsed she was fired from her job, arrested, and tried for violating state secrets (Mowbray para. 17). The proceedings, however, were terminated due to insufficient evidence from the prosecution.

Lastly, The Insider is a psychological drama by Michael Mann starring Al Pacino, Russell Crowe, and Christopher Plummer. This story is based on real life and took place in the U.S. in the first half of the 1990s. One of the protagonists, Jeffrey S. Wygand, Ph.D. and researcher, worked for a major tobacco company. He developed cigarettes that would be able to minimize the frequency of household fires and the number of cancers that result from smoking. Moreover, Wygand actively and publicly protested against the use of an addictive ingredient in tobacco products, blowing the whistle on the companys faults. As a result, he was fired, but it did not stop him from continuing his campaign. Secondary protagonist, the producer of the show 60 Minutes Lowell Bergman interviewed Wygand to expose the whole tobacco industry.

While Lowell Bergman can be considered as an example of a whistleblower, in The Insider story this role falls mostly onto Wygand, as he was the main force behind making the truth public. However, the producer took a major risk by working alongside Wygand on exposing the industrys harmful actions, and as the story continues, he was forcefully sent on vacation in order for the higher-ups to cover the scandal. However, these repercussions can be considered minor in comparison to the punishment Snowden and Gun suffered.

Civil Disobedience in Relation to Whistleblowing

Civil disobedience is usually interpreted as politically expressed deliberate violation of the law, aimed at changes in official policy and the adjustment of legislation. Nicholasen (2019) states that civil resistance campaigns often lead to longer-term reforms than violent campaigns do (19). Its general idea and concept are closely aligned with whistleblowing while the latter seeks to expose the injustice, the former then takes an active, but peaceful stand against it.

The philosophy of civil disobedience involves active practical actions of pressure on political power but without the use of physical violence. Such as in the case of whistleblowing, the individual is committed to law and order, and the desire to maintain stability in society. Both whistleblowers and civil disobedience participants act not from the position of an outside observer but as active members of society seeking to change specific laws or state policies.

Whistleblowing as Representation of Critical Thinking

Critical thinking is crucial in the act of whistleblowing, as the matter of ethics and social injustices are complex and require a delicate, well-thought-out approach. Nevertheless, whistleblowing is an act that any critical thinker must take if they recognize the injustice of someones actions and the impact these actions bring on society. A critical assessment of the situation, its potential consequences, and the role of other individuals and organizations as a whole is necessary in the preparation to blow the whistle. Moreover, the whistleblower must also consider safety measures for both themselves and their close circle to prepare for the inevitable repercussions they would have to suffer (Bazzichelli 242). All in all, critical thinking can be considered the main tool for developing a through and succinct plan of successfully blowing the whistle.

Conclusion

Whistleblowing remains an important ethical practice that allows individuals to expose harmful actions of companies and organizations to the public eye. It is an act of civil disobedience a necessary protest against government or corporations misdeeds. However, the examples of specific people blowing the whistle, such as Snowden, Gun, or Wygand, show that this notion is associated with significant danger to the whistleblower. Still, it is the responsibility of every critically thinking individual to take a stand against deliberate wrongdoing to their community and society as a whole.