Whistleblower or Traitor?

[casimendocina]

This has the potential to be fairly lengthy so I thought I'd put the short question at the top and what this question arose out of at the bottom so if you can't be bothered reading through to the end, just answer question a.

a). Is there a difference between a whistleblower and a traitor. If so, what is the line?

b). The federal election is taking place here in Oz next Saturday. As there's only a small percentage of cellarites who will be voting, this is not really the place for discussion of the issues surrounding it. However, something that's come up in the media quite alot in the last couple of weeks is the following: summarised so that the non-Oz dwellars don't have to trawl through all the media comment on it.

One of the TV programs (60 minutes-played on a commercial station) has hired a previous opposition leader as a 'journalist'. Basically, his contribution so far has been to show up at events where either the current Prime Minister or the current opposition leader are campaigning, approach them and make a bit of a scene, but not add anything useful in terms of the direction of the country to the election debate.

Article from one of the Murdoch papers targeted at the segments of the public that haven't got their evaluation skills honed

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/...-1225905301876

Also from the Murdoch press, but the one Murdoch paper in the country that is viewed as having credibility.

http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com....rudd_v_latham/

As far as I'm concerned, the Latham issue is fairly easy-he is not a constructive individual. He specialises in tearing down what others are trying to build up with no intention of even attempting to establish a useful alternative in its place. This was fairly clear when he was opposition leader and it was lucky that his tenure was short. He has nothing positive to say about anyone including his former party.

This now brings me to Paul Keating. Paul Keating-also a former leader of the Labor party, responsible for floating the Australian dollar back in the 80s and instituting a number of economic reforms which moved Australia further towards the free market. Keating is also famous for 'colourful language', vitriolic attacks on other MPs in Parliament, a love of Italian suits and luxury goods and for taking over the leadership from long term PM Bob Hawke in non-too auspicious circumstances. (i.e. backstabbing). So, the question is: Latham is pretty much universally reviled by both major parties and the media. Keating, while sharing some of the same characteristics, still enjoys a decent quotient of respect throughout the country. Given that both have been non-too complimentary about their former party, where do you draw the line between whistleblower and traitor? Are they providing inside information which the public needs to know about the inner workings of one of the major parties or are they biting the hand that fed them?If so, is this justified and under what circumstances?

[squirell nutkin]

Well, I suppose if the motivation for the "whistleblowing" were self-serving then it would be not in the spirit of whistleblowing, but more in the spirit of "tooting one's horn"

A traitor is anyone who used to agree with you and who no longer does.

But, remember: I'm just a squirell. (Not a squirrel)

[ZenGum]

Treason never prospers,
for this there is a reason,
for if it ever prospers,
none dare call it treason.

Gillard (current PM) was asked by Jo Public ... "How big a tool is Mark Latham?".
After a moments thought, she replied ... "There are some things that cannot be measured..."

[Clodfobble]

A traitor almost always gains personally from his actions, while a whistleblower usually suffers personal loss in order to benefit the general public.

If these guys are making money and gaining fame from their actions, they are merely political side-swappers, not whistleblowers.

[xoxoxoBruce]

But the traitors only reward may be revenge.

[casimendocina]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

Gillard (current PM) was asked by Jo Public ... "How big a tool is Mark Latham?".
After a moments thought, she replied ... "There are some things that cannot be measured..."

I witnessed that moment live (very glad that I took up the TV channel in question's offer of tickets to be in the audience-not sure if my 72 year old father understood the meaning of the word 'tool', but thought it best to let him work it out himself). I thought Gilliard dealt with that particular question really well-there were others where her answers were a bit thin, especially the one about there being no mention of Aboriginal issues in the campaign at all.

I'm keen to see how the opposition leader performs tomorrow night on the same TV program.

[ZenGum]

I had two personal friends in that audience. Cute little country we are.

[casimendocina]

And here's what the Melbourne paper had to say about Mark Latham's 60 Minutes segment.

http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-n...815-1255r.html

[casimendocina]

Three days and I'm watching a show which in the lead-up to the election has been deconstructing political advertising. There are two advertising executives on the panel and one has just put forward the idea that....

"Advertising subsidizes democracy".

I think he's got a point.

[Aliantha]

Mark Latham is insane. He should be in an institution.

[casimendocina]

I'd agree with you.

[Aliantha]

I find it so hard to believe he'd become a 'journalist'. I'm sure he was only hired to bring some comic relief to a boring and predictable election campaign.

[casimendocina]

Totally. What's scary though is that Latham probably didn't see through Channel 9's ulterior motives and has deluded himself that he has made a contribution to serious journalism.

[Aliantha]

oh I'm pretty sure he didn't. lol

That man is a real weirdo...and he just seems to be getting worse.

[casimendocina]

Not only does he need a hobby, he also needs a job well out of the public eye.