Whistleblowing vs Leaks

This publication is authored by and reflected the views and opinion of PT Integrity Indonesia. More information about PT Integrity Indonesia is available on www.integrity-indonesia.com

Whistleblowing vs Leaks

The case of Julian Assange came into the spotlight once again after the British government gave permission for the extradition of the Wikileaks founder to the United States. Before being arrested and detained by British authorities, Assange hid in the Ecuadorian embassy for twelve years. With this extradition, the Australian will face a US court on 18 criminal charges and if convicted, could face up to 175 years in prison.

As one of the founders and a public persona of Wikileaks, Assange received many awards and accolades as well as lawsuits after his whistleblowing site published the secrets of various national authorities, including the USA. The leak of their confidential documents had quite a political impact on the nation.

In addition to Assange, Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning are among other whistleblowers who have been in the media spotlight and persecuted.

Media as a whistleblowing channel

Wikileaks is a non-profit media organization that was founded in 2006 with the aim of disseminating confidential information or documents from anonymous whistleblowers. As they are a non-profit organization, instead of competing with other mainstream media, Wikileaks works with them. In the Cablegate case, for example, Wikileaks provided thousands of classified documents to the four mainstream media before they were released to the public.

In general, the importance of the media as a whistleblowing channel is determined by the magnitude of the fraud or violation and its proximity to the public interest. The more critical the fraud, the closer it is to the public interest, the greater the public pressure due to negative publicity which is expected to encourage the organization to make improvements.

In the case of Wikileaks, the violations exposed are committed by a government and a policymaker, which are directly tied to the public interest.

Likewise with a nation, from the point of view of a company, engaging the media as a whistleblowing channel is not the preferred move since unfavorable exposure has an influence on reputation, which in turn impacts employee morale, sales, and investor views.

Therefore, implementing an effective whistleblowing system within the organization as a legal means to maintain the confidentiality of information is very important.

Why whistleblowers go to the media

A person decides to report a violation that occurs within the organization with the hope for improvement by the organization. However, there are several reasons why someone may report a violation to external parties or the media, instead of to the internal organization. These reasons include the high risk of retaliation from the organization, the lack of response from internal parties, and the desire to be an anonymous reporter.

In the case of Wikileaks, the disclosed violations revealed are committed by the government. A study revealed that the effectiveness of reporting to internal government channels is limited because government entities operate in a political context.

When the organization's internal whistleblowing system runs ineffectively, in that it does not implement a whistleblower protection policy and does not respond well enough, the media becomes the logical choice in the hope that their reports will be taken seriously due to public pressure. Many surveys reveal that the majority of whistleblowers actually report their findings internally before they go to the media.

In addition to the choice of channel, a whistleblower will also choose whether to report anonymously to minimize the risk of retaliation. This pretty much explains why Wikileaks offers a channel for anonymous reports. However, anonymity can also damage the credibility of the report because it raises questions, for example, whether the whistleblower is really a member of the organization, etc.

This is the important role of independent media such as Wikileaks, which is to minimize credibility issues while protecting the identity of sources. Independent media can freely verify and investigate reports, in any form, provided by these anonymous sources without the intervention of any party. This is also a form of response which is usually not carried out by the government but is actually expected by the whistleblower.

Wikileaks itself claims that they test the veracity of a report using traditional investigative journalism techniques combined with current modern technology-based methods. This is to ensure the truth of the information provided by the reporter before it is disseminated to other media and released to the public.

Internal whistleblowing systems as an alternative to public media

Having learned from the story, organizations try to avoid negative publicity in the media. In order to achieve this, they need to ensure that they run effective internal whistleblowing systems.

The effective systems only work in open and ethical cultures, where employees are actively encouraged to report or raise concerns about any suspicious signs of wrongdoings. Employees will feel safe in making these reports if there are certain protection policies in place and if their reports are taken seriously. By implementing an effective whistleblowing system, an organization would essentially adhere to the values of transparency and candor.

Furthermore, whistleblowing systems have gained recognition as some of the most potent early fraud detection tools, with its own ISO guidelines with the release of ISO 37002:2021 on Whistleblowing Management Systems. Hence, the earlier fraud is detected, the smaller the potential loss the organization will suffer.

This publication is authored by and reflected the views and opinion of PT Integrity Indonesia. More information about PT Integrity Indonesia is available on www.integrity-indonesia.com