To blow the whistle or not to blow the whistle, that is the question?

To blow the whistle or not to blow the whistle that is the question? A question which whistleblowers may find themselves asking more often in the digital age, especially after the hefty 25 year sentence that newly turned female Chelsea Manning coped. Journalists are also finding themselves posing very similar questions, as they too are increasingly being prosecuted for not revealing their sources.

New York Times Editor Bill Keller describes how technology has made it easy to illegally tap into private information:

“The digital age has changed the dynamics of disobedience in at least one respect. It used to be that someone who wanted to cheat on his vow of secrecy had to work at it. Daniel Ellsberg tried for a year to make the Pentagon Papers public. There was a lot of time to have second thoughts or to get caught. It is now at least theoretically possible for a whistle-blower or a traitor to act almost immediately and anonymously. Click on a Web site, upload a file, go home and wait.”

The Internet has brought about many pros and cons for whistleblowers. However as Bill Keller outlines, there is very little time for second thoughts. Whistleblowers need to be much more conscious and careful, yes information can be dispersed anonymously, however that can also back fire and the original source could be located.

Laurie Oakes made a really important point about those in society that leak information to the public.

“Leakers, whatever their motivation, serve the public interest, simply because of their importance to free journalism: being first with important news is, in essence, what being a reporter is all about,” He said.

Whistleblowers do not withhold the same responsibility that journalists do. It is the journalist’s role to decide whether or not the information is in the public’s interests and identify the whistleblowers motives.