{"id":850,"date":"2013-05-30T15:51:43","date_gmt":"2013-05-30T13:51:43","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.fu-berlin.de\/jfkpol\/?p=850"},"modified":"2013-06-03T17:26:32","modified_gmt":"2013-06-03T15:26:32","slug":"leaking-versus-whistleblowing","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.fu-berlin.de\/jfkpol\/2013\/05\/30\/leaking-versus-whistleblowing\/","title":{"rendered":"Leaks versus Whistleblowers"},"content":{"rendered":"

Thoughts and Comments on the Importance of Framing in Regard to Inside Sources<\/strong><\/p>\n

Curd Kn\u00fcpfer, May 30 2013<\/h6>\n

\u00a0Journalists are notoriously interested in obtaining \u201cthe inside scoop.\u201d To do so, they rely on sources to provide information which they might then pass on to the public. In recent years, inside sources have often come to be referred to as <\/span>leaks<\/em> or as\u00a0<\/span>whistleblowers<\/em>. These two terms that might at first glance appear to be somewhat interchangeable and to a certain degree even synonymous, on further inspection turn out to have very different definitions and connotations: The term <\/span>leak<\/em> suggests something is spilling out, whereas <\/span>whistleblower<\/em> refers to the process of drawing attention to something.<\/span>[1]<\/a><\/p>\n

This difference in meaning ties them to very different framing patterns. Political communication scholarship sees a typical and complete \u201cframe\u201d as fulfilling four basic functions, namely: problem definition, causal analysis, moral judgment, and remedy promotion.[2]<\/a>\u00a0Conceptualizing <\/span>leaks<\/em> and <\/span>whistleblowers<\/em> as two competing frame elements quickly illustrates a differentiation in regard to defining a specific problem. Contexts in which the term <\/span>whistleblower<\/em> is used will refer to a problem that is external, meaning that the actual reason that caused the metaphorical whistle to be blown will be problematized. The problem, in other words, is the institutional practice. The whistleblower has acted on conscience rather than duty (morally commendable) and the assumption would be that the institution would need to change its practices once these become public.<\/span><\/p>\n

Contexts in which the term leak<\/em> is used are suggestive of a problem affecting the institution itself \u2013 like a sinking ship – the problem defined here is not the institution or its practices, but rather a matter of faulty construction. Leak<\/em> therefore might have a higher potential for providing a frame that problematizes the act itself: a leak is something that is potentially dangerous. It is therefore something that aught to be repaired.<\/p>\n

It is no wonder then to come across two very different op-ed pieces in The New York Times<\/em>, both written in response to recent revelations about the White House\u2019s and Department of Justice\u2019s aggressive policies against journalists and their sources.<\/p>\n

In a piece that appeared on May 20 2013, three former Justice Department officials defend the Obama administration\u2019s actions and call for policies to \u201cstop the leaks.\u201d<\/a><\/p>\n

One week later, the writer and journalist Eyal Press refers to the Obama administration\u2019s policies as an attempt to \u201csilence the whistle-blowers.\u201d<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

These articles present two lines of argumentation which may essentially be referring to the same policies. They do so, however, from different perspectives and thereby advocate competing frames: The perspective of the institution (in this case the DOJ and the US government) sees information that becomes public as a breach in national security. At its worst, this view equates leaking with treason and as directly aiding a, for the most part, unspecified enemy. The other perspective sees transparency of information as a vital precondition to any watchdog or checks and balance role other institutional actors might be able to\u00a0<\/span>fulfill\u00a0in the interest of the public. The question which arises out of this observation is how will journalists refer to these sources in the near future? This is interesting mainly for three reasons:\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

First of all, the degree to which these two terms, <\/span>leaks<\/em> and <\/span>whistleblowers<\/em>, are used in similar contexts helps us understand which problems are defined and whose perspectives and interests are more dominant within the public sphere. Secondly, this is an important and interesting issue for political scientists and communication studies, since journalists are not neutral observers in this case. Professional journalists have an active stake in the game, since the type of journalism they produce depends in large parts on the types of sources they have access to. The media might therefore behave differently than models predicting adherence to institutional forms of power might predict. (Put in other words: does the media\u2019s self-interest trump their tendency to \u201cplay it safe\u201d?)<\/span><\/p>\n

Lastly, this seems to be an issue, where framing is immensely consequential:<\/p>\n

Consider the different implications of the following two sets of polling questions, which could be posed in assessing public opinion:<\/p>\n