Whistleblowing and the media

There are four things that happen to a person when he or she witnesses some form of wrong doing.  The person is likely to stay silent, make the situation known to people within his or her immediate environment, go public with the information or leak the information anonymously.

Every society desires honesty from its members and the existence of this virtue allows for complete dedication to the society’s mission and success. Honest and outspoken individuals, who would expose the wrongs of society are an asset because their actions would help promote a transparent structure, effective communication and most importantly, protect the society from wrong doers.

In 2013, Ghana witnessed a scandal in its history, “VIKILEAKS.” Most people would qualify the source, Mr. Lawrence Quayeson, as a whistleblower but this brought to the fore debates about who a whistleblower really is. According to Madam Beauty Narteh of the Ghana Anti-Corruption Coalition,  Mr. Quayeson does not qualify as a whistleblower because the conditions and processes stipulated in the Whistleblowers’ Act would not accommodate anybody with an ulterior motive of making gains out of the revelation of a corrupt act outside incentives under the law. She said since the driver of the former Communications Minister was alleged to have done this with the intention of receiving huge sums of money, he did not qualify to be a whistleblower under the act. Later, it was alleged that Mr. Quayeson’s life was in danger.

There are few good people who would like to expose the improprieties in society. However, the problem these people face is how to do it and the assurance of their safety. The Whistleblowers’ Act, 2006, makes provisions for channels through which a person can report what has been witnessed and the media, one of the channels listed, seem to be the most accessible. Though the media has the largest patrons and you are assured of reaching the appropriate quarters with your findings, some people have reservations about using the media.

For a media house to be considered as credible, it should be able to tell the source of its information. For this reason, whistleblowers fear the possibility of being exposed. The safety of the whistleblower is always in danger because not all people support the act of whistleblowing. For example, the integrity and image of a company could be marred forever with the action of a whistleblower and for that, some people may want to revenge. If the media would remain the first point of call for whistleblowers who want to expose the wrongs in society, then there should be the push for the establishment of good protection plans and systems. With this in place, more people would be encouraged to sound the alarm when they witness improprieties in society.

With the influx of technology, whistleblowing is surely going to get worse over time. The presence of social media and websites such as WikiLeaks will make it easier to spread news of improprieties anonymously. The only flaw of this system would be the reliability of the information that is circulated. More stories will go viral and before it reaches the last person, the stories may have been altered. The media as custodians and the main source of news to the public must make it a point to investigate the stories before they are reported on and also work to ensure that whistleblowers are better protected.

We all have a responsibility to protect the society we live in therefore; we cannot be silent when we identify irregularities in the society. We have a responsibility to keep leaders, especially, accountable for how our resources are used and so we need to be courageous to spill the beans when the wrong thing is done. However, those who matter must also ensure that we do not lose our lives or get maimed for doing for we consider our duty to protecting society from people who do not want to see it thrive. As Martin Luther King Jnr. once said, “our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.”