As I listened to On the Media, I couldn’t help picturing a little kid repeating “but why?” over and over again to a frazzled parent. I feel like this podcast’s target audience is the adult version of that little kid: earnest, aware, and occasionally tuned out by their loved ones who can handle only so much trivial rambling. However, the episode “Whistleblower” suggests that the tidbits of trivia concerning ‘whistleblowing’ might actually be foundational to our understanding of information leaks.
Specifically, the podcast emphasizes the importance of understanding a word’s etymology when deconstructing rhetoric. The episode describes a man who was imprisoned for confirming rumors about the CIA’s reliance on waterboarding. The man feels within his rights guaranteed by the first amendment to divulge this information, and when confronted with whistleblowing accusations, he freely admits he is a whistleblower; that is, a whistleblower by classical definition: “someone who brings to light evidence of waste, fraud, abuse, or illegality.” This definition is not loaded with the negative connotations that are usually ascribed to whistleblowing; “bringing to light” is a far cry from “betraying secrets.”
The podcast traces the origin of the negative connotation to labor unions à la On the Waterfront. The word came to be associated with scabs and spies, and this association, On the Media argues, is what vilifies the likes of Edward Snowden. I think by presenting the word’s original definition--one who literally blows a whistle (e.g. a referee)--and showing how subsequent definitions have strayed from the original’s purity, the podcast calls out its listeners who instinctively condemn whistleblowers.
On the Media was a great listen. A member of the Western world in the 21st century cannot escape being constantly wired into media and social platforms. On the Media helps the modern learner traverse our expanding sea of sensational rhetoric.
