Editorial comment.

AuthorPrickett, Ruth
PositionFinancial scandal - Editorial

The pen may be mightier than the sword, but that doesn't mean it can't also be double-edged. It's not surprising, therefore, that people who court publicity--even in a good cause--usually have to endure speculation about their motives and their morals.

This is partly why, after all the publicity about financial scandals and attention on corporate governance over the past couple of years, whistle-blowers are still seen as bad news (page 18). You have to be very brave or very naive to blow the whistle. If you do it quietly, you are likely to be shunted swiftly off to the sidelines. If you go to the press, you risk vilification by former colleagues and having to run the gauntlet of photographers whenever you leave your house. New regulations may make life easier for whistle-blowers, but these are unlikely to remove the stigma. After all, no one likes a sneak who runs to the teacher--even when someone is stealing from the stock cupboard.

One problem is that whistle-blowers often have to tackle people who are considerably more influential than they are. Another problem is that too often they know the people they are attacking, but have never met the people who own the contents of the stock cupboard--ie, the investors or, in the case of public-sector organisations, the general public. Definitions of whistle-blowing are difficult: the line between martyr and self-publicising troublemaker is often fine and your view usually depends on which side of it you're standing.

This problem was epitomised by the case of Katharine Gun, the GCHQ employee who blew the whistle when she leaked a memo implicating the government in spying on its allies. She ended up in the Old Bailey facing a...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT