The distinction between the coward’s (or liar’s) leak and a whistleblower’s claim is being more broadly recognized. Jason Foster, Founder and President of Empower Oversight Whistleblowers & Research (EMPOWR) had this the other day via Just the News:
People misunderstand that “there is a difference between blowing the whistle, which is legal, and protected—and, arguably, your patriotic duty, right—and leaking,” Foster told the John Solomon Reports podcast. “Leaking is completely different … leaking is illegal, a lot of the time, or against policy of the agency. And it’s often the cowardly way out, as opposed to the patriotic thing to do.”
And now, once again, the press must stop hiding under its collective typing desk and answer the question (among others), because members of the press know full well that distinction:
If representing a claimed source as a whistleblower, what is their concrete, measurable evidence that this source has used up all of his employer’s internal whistleblowing channels before he decided to leak?
Along with that, the press must answer these questions related to the integrity of their claimed source:
If the source exists, then
–Why the source should be believed, given that by speaking publicly, even if anonymously, he’s likely violating his terms of employment if not his oath of office
–Why the source should be believed, given that by hiding behind anonymity, he’s displaying his cowardice—and cowards will always and only say what they believe will be personally beneficial