Assange is not a whistleblower and I wish people would stop dignifying what he has done with that sobriquet. A whistleblower is someone who works for, or with an organisation, discovers some wrongdoing, or apparent wrongdoing, and makes it known in a way appropriate to the alleged wrongdoing, and the consequences of its exposure. Most developed countries now have specific laws to protect such people and all reputable companies and organisations have Legal/HR/Security policies which both encourage and protect whistleblowers in the interests of good corporate governance – and the avoidance of severe legal penalties.
I have written whistleblowing policies. I have also acted on a couple of occasions as one of the ‘designated officers’ who are charged with investigating any allegations made under the policies and with ensuring the well-being, and sometimes physical safety, of anyone who comes forward with some allegations. (Also, with sorting out the legitimate allegations from the cheap shots by a disgruntled employee.)
The exposure of the MP expenses scandal was whistleblowing. There was a specific case of alleged wrongdoing and the whistleblower brought it to light. Those who had done wrong were exposed and most of them suffered penalties in one way or another. The consideration of whether or not the penalties were appropriate is left as an exercise for the reader.
What Assange has done, on the other hand, is scatter to the four winds a warehouse full of proprietary information without regard to whether or not there is any indication of wrongdoing to justify the action and without regard to the consequences. I was listening to the BBC World Service on my way home from work and there was an interview with one of the people who have left Wikileaks to set up a rival ‘service.’ He made the same point and asserted that the new service, Openleaks (?) will carry out some sort of quality control on any material that is sent to them and then make it available through ‘appropriate’ channels. That is whistleblowing.
I note, passim, that there was no such media feeding frenzy over the case of Marta Andreasen a few years back when she blew the whistle on the EU fraud manual budget. Fired and harrassed by the authorities until she was given sanctuary by UKIP, I didn’t see people tearing their hair out and electronically covering themselves in sackcloth and ashes on her behalf*. I wonder why?
*Note that she has now left UKIP because they didn’t meet her standards either. Obviously a very straight-laced lady. Still and all…
Boadicea's Chariot 
Jeez Bravo, what do you expect?
Literacy AND vocabulary amongst the cognoscenti?
This reads like an active learning algorithm, Bravo. 🙂
“I note, passim…” – do you mean that?
You’re right – it doesn’t mean what I though it does. Should have looked it up first.
WordPress did all that hyperlinking stuff – is this something new? I though I was adding the tags WordPress suggested.
And I meant ‘strait-laced.’
Janus and Bearsy, a cheap shot, in my opinion. It’s a dead and now largely untaught language, more’s the pity,and I don’t think we should get over-exercised if a particular word is not used in the way that we were lucky enough to be taught to use it. I read it as ‘in passing’ instead of ‘everywhere’. I could, of course, be wrong.
Bravo, good evening. In re the crux of your post, I am no fan of Assange but I do believe that he can be seen as a ‘whistleblower’. I personally think that your definition is too narrow. Assange is a part of the ‘system’ as we all are so I think that he is a whistleblower thereby. Muddle-headed, arrogant, devious and deeply-flawed but definitely a whistleblower (all my own opinion again).
Question is, JM, on what has he blown the whistle? (Apart from the fact that SIPRnet security is a disgrace.)
I beg to differ. What the bona fide Whistleblower in the expenses case did was expose malpractice – as did Miss Andreassen.
As to the ‘red mist’ paragraph, perhaps you could point out where this is inaccurate: ‘What Assange has done, on the other hand, is scatter to the four winds a warehouse full of proprietary information without regard to whether or not there is any indication of wrongdoing to justify the action and without regard to the consequences.’
PS. Leaving aside the slight exagerration for literary effect, ie, ‘warehouse full.’
Bearsy, good evening, I take it from your lack of a smiley thing that you are not in joshing-recognition mode tonight.
One day, I trust, you will come to realise that I never, ever, take myself seriously and that I struggle to take anybody else that seriously either.
“WordPress did all that hyperlinking stuff – is this something new? I though I was adding the tags WordPress suggested.”
Fair enough, Bravo, but if you re-read your post and click on all the hyper-links you may understand the reason for my rather tongue in cheek comment #2. 😉
Same applies – no whistle has been blown.
Possibly, but your whole post is about defining your terms, Bravo and then you default to same applies.
You can’t have it both ways, I suggest.
Araminta. I don’t understand.
I will try to explain, Bravo.
I read your post, but became sidetracked by the links, and this both amused and bemused me, to be honest, hence my first comment.
I was totally distracted by this and have not ventured an opinion on the real point of your post.
Others then commented on your use or misuse of certain terms.
My feeling is that we can debate the real meaning of your post or semantics.
I don’t know why you are so keen on defining terms, is all, but if you want my opinion, then it doesn’t really matter what you call Assange; better to argue what he has done, and the results.
Just my opinion, Bravo.
Surely inherently a ‘whistleblower’ has to be on the inside, an employee of the system that he/she
decides to open up to a wider audience to expose wrong doing of some kind.
Assange does not qualify at any level. He has published stolen material, that makes him a handler of stolen goods, a fence, as such not a whistleblower.
JM, your #7 – “a cheap shot, in my opinion” – absolutley! Like sarcasm cheap shots are mega-satisfying when aimed at deserving cases! 🙂
absolut-e-l-y