A wonderful self importance aid until modern times if we can get past the old image - the qonderful concept of 'I'm in Charge.' to reflect here on people who have blown the gaffe....... whatever that means...... spill the beans... anyway tell tale tits who reveal all  = especially for the greater good/newspaper contracts etc. There must be many in History - and not to be confused with its sidekick 'controlling the narrative.' Over to you posters....... .....from P.
 I note I am now given my full name where it used to be  just P.

I suppose Mark Feldt who was 'Deep Throat' in the Watergate scandal might be considered a whistleblower.

What is arguably more interesting than simply identifying historical "whistle blowers" is the fact that history - and indeed myth in which they also figure prominently (think Judas and Pandora) - teaches us in no uncertain terms that "spilling the beans", even if indisputably for the common good, brings you to a very bad end indeed. And this raises an interesting inconsistency in how people apparently think - while in many cases the majority of people recognise that the whistle blower has released information into the public domain that ultimately works to everyone's benefit, the same majority don't bat an eyelid when some terribly disproportionate and often completely unjust fate is meted out to the same whistle blower. Or at least when and if the whistle blower's name enters the public domain, something Mark Feldt was seemingly very well aware of as he fought into his 90s to ensure that he not be identified as "Deep Throat" at all.

This cognitive dissonance on the public's part in simultaneously acknowledging the benefit of these individuals' actions while apparently accepting such cruel reprisal against whistle blowers as "normal" has a very long history indeed, so I would be loath to ascribe it to any particular culture or time period. What is even more dissonant, and also depressingly usual in history, is when the same public not only accepts retribution as "normal" but even participates in the exercise quite willingly. Even as Tiberius Gracchi was being clubbed to death with chairs wielded by an angry plebeian mob (for whom he had recently secured significant land ownership rights by "whistle blowing" the corrupt and avaricious behaviour of the senatorial class in that respect) I wonder if he regarded his fatal assailants with a mixture of stoic acceptance of human stupidity and a generous dollop of WTF!?!

Or for that matter ten years later I wonder did his brother Gaius, after doing something similar with regard to secret grain hoarding by the rich in straitened times and having secured free bread for all citizens on the basis of his exposé, think similar thoughts even as he nobly fell on his slave's sword while a murderous (but presumably now well-fed) mob descended on his house thanks to the senate having put a bounty on his head? Having seen his brother's fate earlier he must surely have contemplated this potentially fatal cognitive dissonance in some detail over the years, though unfortunately for Gaius he apparently had drawn a conclusion that it must have been a "one off" and surely couldn't apply in his case.

Gaius should have studied history - if only of human ingratitude - a little more closely, I think.

nordmann wrote:

What is arguably more interesting than simply identifying historical "whistle blowers" is the fact that history - and indeed myth in which they also figure prominently (think Judas and Pandora) - teaches us in no uncertain terms that "spilling the beans", even if indisputably for the common good, brings you to a very bad end indeed. And this raises an interesting inconsistency in how people apparently think - while in many cases the majority of people recognise that the whistle blower has released information into the public domain that ultimately works to everyone's benefit, the same majority don't bat an eyelid when some terribly disproportionate and often completely unjust fate is meted out to the same whistle blower.

The story of Roger Casement would seem to fit this although his fate didn’t seem to be directly linked to his whistleblowing. Having been lauded for exposing the enslavement and other abuses of workers in the Congo and Peru (he received a medal for the former and a knighthood for the latter), within 5 years the self-same British state which had honoured him then charged him with treason for which he was duly hanged.

Deleted first sentence.

Thinking of a recent whistleblower, Dr Li Wenliang who did much to make people aware of the danger of Covid-19 was killed by the said virus later.  (Slightly off-topic, I checked on spelling with The Guardian website and it seems The Guardian has now implemented a pay wall.   I don't condemn them for that because a newspaper needs revenue to pay its staff and to be able to function.  They did resist putting up a pay wall longer than most other papers though they say they are not doing so now.  They are asking people to register though.).

Has the above entry about the Guardian any relevence to the more interesting mention of Dr Li? Let us not lose the thread even if we are losing the plot, please.

The Guardian is still actually free with no pay wall, although they are encouraging viewers to register with them (for free) and you need to register to comment on articles ... but so far I just click on the button "I'll register later" and then carry on reading.

What must one do  to try to keep a thread  in the weave and not fraying all over the place in following up inconsequential witter. Am being in  lofty cadenza mode If we have done with whistleblowers, LIR perhaps can open a thread on all the incidental stuff she culls on line.

LiR will try to refrain from commenting henceforth on any threads started by Priscilla.  No promises about any other threads.  Was the passive aggression really necessary?

yeah.... I'll probably do the same.  Never sure which threads P. started and that one is apt to mouth off in other threads. It's tough life.

Larry post got in here also somehow...... weird.