Almost
Home, CounterPunchers! Annual
Fundraising Appeal
We interrupt your regular reading
habits to bring you the following important announcement: CounterPunch
needs your financial support!
We're not in the habit of making
idle threats and this isn't one. Either we meet our fundraising
goal of $60,000 over the next three weeks or we'll be forced
to drastically curtail the operation of our website. It's near
the end of our year and the wolves are gathering at the door.
CounterPunch's website is supported
almost entirely by subscribers to the print edition of our newsletter.
We don't clutter the site by selling annoying popup ads. We tried
getting money out of Google, but they gave us the boot. We aren't
on the receiving end of six-figure grants from big foundations.
George Soros doesn't have us on retainer. And we don't sell tickets
on cruiseliners.
The continued existence of
CounterPunch depends solely on the support and dedication of
our readers. And we know there are a lot of you. We get thousands
of emails from you every day. Our website receives nearly 100,000
visits each day-and those numbers grow by the month. Of course,
all these readers chew up a lot of bandwidth and that costs money.
Through the Iraq war, the daily
traumas of the Bush administration, hurricanes, earthquakes and
the disappearance of the Democrats, many of you have found a
refuge at CounterPunch and made us your homepage. You tell us
that you love CounterPunch because the quality of writing you
find here every day and because we never flinch under fire. We
appreciate the support and are prepared for the fierce battles
to come as the Bush administration expands its wars abroad and
at home.
To contribute by phone you
can call Becky or Deva toll free at: 1-800-840-3683
or mail contribution to:
CounterPunch
PO Box 228
Petrolia, CA 95558
Onward,
Alexander, Jeffrey, Becky and Deva
November
14, 2006
Going Against the Crowd
Whistleblowers,
Who are They?
By Dr. PETER ROST,
MD
Most people wonder how anyone can become
a whistleblower-ever. After all, most stories of whistleblowers
don't end well. And that's the reason most people keep quiet.
A study of 233 whistleblowers
by Donald Soeken, St. Elizabeth's Hospital in Washington, DC found that the average
whistleblower was a family man in his forties with a strong conscience
and high moral values. After blowing the whistle on fraud, 90
percent of the whistleblowers were fired or demoted, 27 percent
faced lawsuits, 26 percent had to seek psychiatric or physical
care, 25 percent suffered alcohol abuse, 17 percent lost their
homes, 15 percent got divorced, 10 percent attempted suicide,
and 8 percent were bankrupted. But in spite of all this, only
16 percent said that they wouldn't blow the whistle again.
One thing I've learned-which
didn't exactly come as a surprise-is that most organizations
react the same way to whistleblowers. The basic response is "kill
the messenger." And if he goes public, he is all but guaranteed
to lose his standing in the group.
So when I blew the whistle
the third time around, at the Huffington Post, it didn't surprise
me that they immediately locked me out and stopped me from writing
further articles for them. Of course, one reason I criticized
the HuffPo publicly was because, based on my experience, I didn't
think doing so quietly would help and I also wanted to test this
hypothesis. It also shouldn't surprise anyone that they were
forced to implement my recommendations (prohibit employees from
anonymously posting on blogs and remove "reader's favorite
comments" which I had shown could be abused).
Whistleblowers are often right,
however, most organizations feel it is more important not to
be embarrassed than to correct what is wrong. So the whistleblower
is seen as a bigger threat than the problem they bring up. When
Enron whistleblower Sherron Watkins went to the CEO to save the
company, she didn't get a pat on the shoulder. Instead, Ken Lay,
the CEO, tried to fire her. This is a typical reaction. Of course,
part of the problem is that corruption often starts at the top,
so when employees try to correct things they discover that they
step on some mighty toes.
So how can someone be crazy
enough to blow the whistle?
After all, I wouldn't recommend
for anyone to do what I've done. I guess whistleblowing should
have the same disclaimer they use in car commercials: Closed
course, professional driver, do not try on your own.
But I always believed, that
just like a professional driver, I'd be able to pull this stunt
off. I've never encountered anything I couldn't resolve in the
end. We'll see if that's true this time around as well.
This still begs the question,
however . . . how can anyone be crazy enough to be a whistleblower?
Clearly, there are lots of
good, conscientious people in every industry; yet, most of them
don't end up in such an exposed situation.
The reason for that is, I think,
that when you work in lower or middle management, you don't see
the big picture and you don't see all the things that are going
on. It's not your job to deal with those problems. And, at least
in my experience, once you get to a more senior management level,
that's when suddenly all hell breaks lose. And this is also the
reason management is so careful about whom they promote to this
level. Everyone knows this isn't just about the best guy for
the job-it is about trust. Management needs to trust the senior
employee to do the "right thing," and that may be defined
very differently in different companies. Usually it means quietly
solving things, or looking the other way, or to be able to take
a hint when to back off.
But some people don't take
that hint. Are they born troublemakers, born whistleblowers?
I don't think so. I think whistleblowers
are made, not born. They simply saw enough and said "enough
is enough." It's basically a matter of fairness. Some had
no choice. "Join the conspiracy, act or quit." Those
are the options. Not an easy choice. And some choose to act.
When the company doesn't like their action they are branded "whistleblowers."
Animal experiments support
this contention.
You see, animals appear to
have an inherent sense of fairness and justice, just like humans.
In experiments with Capuchins, they proved they knew unfairness
when they encountered this.
Capuchins prefer grapes to
cucumbers, and when a scientist in a test gave a grape to one
capuchin and a cucumber to another, the latter threw it onto
the ground and stalked away rather than give in to this injustice.
In another experiment, these animals learned to trade a plastic
pipe for food. If they saw another capuchin make a trade for
a delicious grape, but were offered a cucumber in exchange for
their own plastic pipe, they were much more likely to refuse
to hand it over in return for the stupid vegetable. Clearly,
they felt it was better to go hungry than to give in to this
unfairness. Many similar experiments have been performed, showing
that animals rather have nothing than something, if another animal
is treated better.
And humans may operate the
same way. It may be better to become a whistleblower and stop
an injustice, even though the cost is much higher than the gain,
simply based on this sense of unfairness.
Many studies in humans have
confirmed that this is how we operate. In one experiment, one
person is offered $100 and then tells his teammate that he will
only get $25 out of that $100, or they'll both get nothing, and
the teammate usually refuses, and so they both get nothing.
Whistleblowing; it's about
fairness. Doing the right thing; correct an injustice.
It's not something people do
lightly, because the penalties in our society are so high-no
job, no money, no future, etc.
But deep down it is probably
hardwired into our brains.
Just like the response is hardwired.
We need cooperation to survive. Whistleblowing is perceived as
a threat to the group: Kill the wolf that doesn't acquiesce.
What
You're Missing in Our Subscriber-only CounterPunch Newsletter
A Special Investigation:
China's Mass Murder for Body Parts
CounterPunch
outlines the terrible evidence that thousands of Falun Gong members
have been killed to supply China's body parts trade with the
West. Larry Lack reviews
the evidence and explains why the US government is keeping its
mouth shut. CounterPunch
Online is read by millions of viewers each month But remember, we are
funded solely by the subscribers to the print edition
of CounterPunch.
Please support this website by buying a subscription to our newsletter,
which contains fresh material you won't find anywhere else, or
by making a donation towards the cost of this online edition. Remember contributions
are tax-deductible.Click
here to make a donation. If you find our site useful please:Subscribe
Now
CounterPunch
Speakers Bureau Sick of sit-on-the-Fence speakers, tongue-tied and timid?
CounterPunch Editors Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St Clair
are available to speak forcefully on ALL the burning issues,
as are other CounterPunchers seasoned in stump oratory. Call
CounterPunch Speakers Bureau, 1-800-840-3683. Or email beckyg@counterpunch.org.
