Does Whistleblowers Cause More Harm Or Good?

991 Words4 Pages
Whistleblowing, the act of exposing classified information from the government or corporations, is hotly debated. By nature, whistleblowing is generally used to expose corruption within these agencies. Some believe whistleblowers should be prosecuted for breaching security, while others fully support their legal protection for the sake of preserving ethics. What must be answered to validate either side of this debate is whether whistleblowers cause more harm or good. From example, it can be concluded that they are far more beneficial to society than detrimental, and thus should be protected to the fullest extent of the law. Firstly, it should be known that the secrecy of government agencies unfortunately enables unethical or plainly criminal behavior. If not for whistleblowers, these behaviors would be invisible to the public eye. Most famously, a whistleblower was responsible for helping journalists piece together the infamous Watergate Scandal; “there was not enough evidence to connect the break-in to the Nixon administration until two young investigative reporters working for the Washington Post, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, started meeting secretly with a top government official they referred to only as Deep Throat” (Whistleblowers). Similar cases have also…show more content…
However, they are only a threat to the privacy of those who are corrupt. Rather than outing any information which could potentially give foreign governments leverage, the most famous whistleblowing cases in the United States have involved inside schemes. No citizen could be harmed by knowing the information that is leaked, but they may very well be threatened by unknown dangers if authority remains unchecked. That is why it is important for whistleblowers to have protection which enables them to unveil corruption for all to see. There is far more danger to the majority if information remains classified than if it is made
Open Document