On The Media

I was surprised to see a piece like this on your show and could only think that it was "fair and balanced" like something that would appear on Fox News. What use could there be for whistleblowers in a democracy..during the most secrecy oriented and policy driven administration in history? At least the piece might have covered what was actually included the law. Or how about a comparison between the number of paid lobbyists what they are paid and by who compared to the number of whistleblowers. Instead what we got was fluff piece with a tone like something from "Entertainment Tonight," that covered whistleblowers like they were some kind of quirky people at a Star Trek convention. This is a show on the quality of journalism and media? You've sunk to a new low. Take a look at the beam in your own eye as the saying goes....

Whatever Paul.

What's the difference between a 'whistle-blower' and a 'snitch'? Really, none at all. The application of one term or another illustrates how the vocabulary is used to frame issues politically. When someone is described as a 'whistle-blower', you may be sure the editor and correspondent are antagonistic to the institution under criticism. On the other hand, whistle-blowers from those who testified against Communists in the 1950s to Linda Tripp are framed as 'snitches' seeking personal gain - though, come to think of it, quite a number of those 'whistle-blowers' are able to convert their brave actions into book contracts and political prominence.

This interview is TOTALLY in outerspace and full of the opinions of someone who knows absolutely nothing. Please choose more informed guests on this topic in the future.

Let's see... if you want to find out how to transplant a heart, interview a reporter who saw it on an episode of ER. If you want to know more about the mating habits of African Buffalo, interview a reporter who watched it "Live" on the Discovery Channel. If your interested in knowing how many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop, then interview a reporter who is a diabetic, and by all means, if you want to know what it feels like, including the psychological affects of being a government whistleblower, definitely interview a reporter who was continuously annoying whistleblowers at the conference, like a pimple on your butt –– no matter how much you tried to ignore it, its constantly riding your butt, and all you could think about was squeezing its little head. GREAT INTERVIEW Folks!

Eve Fairbanks's story completely ignored the material that I gave her on my whistleblower research. She did not know about the work of Jack Anderson when I ask her about reporters that had written about whistleblowers. Her quotes were out of context and misleading.

It appeared to me that she was on a mission to ignore the facts about whistle blowing and concentrate on her own preconceived ideas about whistleblowers.

I think that the best thing that one could do with this story is to throw it into the circular file.

By challenging abuses of power and conventional wisdom, whistleblowers are the pioneers of change who keep society from being stagnant. Of course some are colorful. Dull people change the course of history as the exception, not the rule. My gripe with Eve Fairbanks' vision is that it's all about being colorful. That's just cosmetic. She skipped the vital role whistleblowers play in society. That's why three women whistleblowers were Time's Persons of the Year: They made a difference.