“Whistleblower or Leaker?” Examining the Portrayal and Characterization of Edward Snowden in USA, UK, and HK Posts

Wu, Amy; Will, W. K.; Chan, Wendy Wing Lam

doi:10.1007/978-981-287-209-8_6

Cited by 7 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…By comparing judgments of "whistle-blowers" and "leakers," the current studies help close this gap. Though previous research on this form of dissent (i.e., revealing group misconduct) has focused on how people's prior attitudes toward a dissenter can guide the labels they choose to use to describe him/ her (e.g., those who feel more positively toward Snowden tend to label him a "whistle-blower"; Wu et al, 2015), our studies show that the labels themselves can shape people's perceptions of the dissenter. In each study, the descriptions of the dissenting group members and their behaviors were identical across conditions, except for the term "whistle-blower" or "leaker."…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 80%

“…Supporting this notion, a recent content analysis of news articles from The Washington Post (an American publication) and The Guardian (a British publication) revealed that the former primarily described Edward Snowden as a "leaker" and portrayed him more negatively, whereas The Guardian primarily described Snowden as a "whistle-blower" and portrayed him more positively (Wu, Ma, & Chan, 2015), perhaps because Snowden's betrayal of his ingroup (the US) was more relevant to Americans' than to Brits' views of him (see Waytz et al, 2013). Furthermore, in the organizational literature, the term "whistleblower" (but never "leaker") is used when discussing perceptions of dissenters as morally sound-for example, when discussing the dissenters' courage or self-sacrifice (Grant, 2002).…”

Section: The Role Of Labelingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Judging the actions of “whistle-blowers” versus “leakers”: Labels influence perceptions of dissenters who expose group misconduct

Rios

Ingraffia

2016

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although moral and collective concerns have been found to predict expressions of dissent, little research has examined conditions under which dissenters are perceived as acting out of such concerns. Three studies tested whether judgments of dissenters who expose group misconduct can depend on subtle labeling differences. In Study 1, participants rated their actions as more morally based, and themselves as more likely to express dissent, after reading a scenario in which they were labeled a "whistle-blower" (vs. "leaker"). In Studies 2-3, participants who read a passage describing an employee of an organization (Study 2) or a well-known individual (Edward Snowden, Study 3) as a "whistle-blower," relative to "leaker," viewed these individuals as more morally and collectively concerned, which in turn mediated perceived deservingness of punishment. Implications for the factors that lead dissenters to be judged positively, for psychological effects of labels, and for generalizability across contexts are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 80%

Section: The Role Of Labelingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Judging the actions of “whistle-blowers” versus “leakers”: Labels influence perceptions of dissenters who expose group misconduct

Rios

Ingraffia

2016

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…If someone is only a 'leaker', they are often viewed negatively, even when the information provided to the public is accurate (Wu, Ma, & Chan, 2014). Someone may be viewed as a leaker if they provide information publicly and the disclosed information was technically legal-but immoral or unethical-behaviour (Wu et al, 2014). Leakers, as Dana Gold (2019) noted, are not whistleblowers, but rather, those who publicize information that may damage a person or persons (see also Stanger, 2019).…”

Section: Whistleblowers Leakers Activists and Informantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reframing the whistleblower in research: Truth‐tellers as whistleblowers in changing cultural contexts

Bushnell

2020

Sociology Compass

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Whistleblowing is fraught with conceptual dilemmas, including those who may be considered whistleblowers and fundamental concepts associated with the term. Whistleblowing is a dynamic concept, set within and deeply related to culture, yet scholarship has focused primarily on whistleblowing and its ramifications within management and organizational settings, as opposed to engaging with the wrong‐doing disclosed and conceptualizing how we assign meaning to whistleblowers/ing in changing landscapes of societal values and cultural institutions. To grasp the cultural sociological understanding of what constitutes whistleblowing, these themes and how they are shaped need to be drawn out in scholarship. Thus, the purpose of this review is to determine through which disciplines, lenses and discourse whistleblowing has been developed in academia and to identify gaps in disciplines and methods, highlighting how these affect our broader understanding of whistleblowing. This review article offers preliminary insight into how people engage in meaning‐making connected with terms such as whistleblowing, abuse and corruption through the lens of the #MeToo movement. The article encourages further research in disciplines such as sociology, political theory, human rights, socio‐legal studies and particularly, within cultural sociology.

show abstract

“…By comparing US and foreign outlets, researchers explore the international dimension of such a complex editorial decision: a critical position from the local press would mean constructing a reality contrary to the government (2015, p. 2), whereas detracting a "mole" (2015, p. 7) would mean support for the government. Wu, Ma, and Chan (2015) discuss these framing choices by analyzing keywords in three newspaper sources: The Washington Post, The Guardian, and South China Morning Post. The article shows that keywords are essential to understand the sentiment attributed to the main character of the story, in this case, Edward Snowden.…”

Section: Media Coverage and Decisive Framingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Traditional written media coverage and cybersecurity events: the NSA case

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article investigates how three media outlets (the digital written editions of CNN, Fox News, and the BBC), perceived as politically partisan, framed the news on Edward Snowden, who disclosed sensitive cybersecurity issues. As the media is an influential actor in domestic and international politics, how the news coverage on Internet security flaws framed the facts under narrative dispute matters. Sentiment analyses were conducted on hundreds of articles published on the free-access written news websites between 2013-2018. The results show positive or negative sentiments expressed in most headlines, while more neutral texts are found in the news cores.

show abstract

“Whistleblower or Leaker?” Examining the Portrayal and Characterization of Edward Snowden in USA, UK, and HK Posts

Cited by 7 publications

References 1 publication

Judging the actions of “whistle-blowers” versus “leakers”: Labels influence perceptions of dissenters who expose group misconduct

Judging the actions of “whistle-blowers” versus “leakers”: Labels influence perceptions of dissenters who expose group misconduct

Reframing the whistleblower in research: Truth‐tellers as whistleblowers in changing cultural contexts

Traditional written media coverage and cybersecurity events: the NSA case

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About