“A natural person (and not a union or association) who has personal knowledge of the facts disclosed (and not the spokesperson for a third party), disinterested (no remuneration) and in good faith”. This is how the 4th European directive to combat money laundering and corruption (May 20, 2015) defines the whistleblower.
And France, which was inspired by this European text, added in its legislation that the facts revealed must be either crimes and misdemeanors, serious and manifest violations of an international commitment, or a unilateral act of an organization international decision taken on the basis of such a commitment, law or regulation, or a threat or serious harm to the general interest. “Facts, information or documents covered by national defense secrecy, medical secrecy or the secrecy of relations between a lawyer and his client are excluded,” specifies, on the other hand, French law. As we can see, whistleblowers and journalists are very close, occupying almost the same field (public space). And have the same objective: to reveal illegal facts, risks of crisis or to bring general information to the attention of the public. But do they really do the same job? Actually, no.
The whistleblower, as his name suggests, alerts, points out the shortcomings of the legislator, the failure of regulation or even the failure of controls. To alert means to rouse, to warn, to advise, to prevent, to ring the bell, to sound the alarm signal. The journalist goes further. He collects information, verifies it, processes it before disseminating it. It is this verification and processing phase (essential for the journalist) which differentiates the two lookouts. There is also the broadcast channel. The journalist (except freelancers) is identified in a media outlet. The whistleblower does not have a dedicated channel. And can be an employee, researcher or even investigative journalist. In summary, the whistleblower alerts, the journalist informs. We also see that the first is, more and more, the source of the second. Far from being competitors, as Mamadou Ndiaye, communications director of the E-Média Invest Group believes, whistleblowers and journalists are therefore complementary and are called upon to cultivate collaboration to promote the rule of law and good governance. .
The UN body (UNESCO) and many human rights associations are even campaigning for a dynamic relationship between whistleblowers and journalists, considering this relationship to be mutually beneficial for fighting corruption and strengthening democracy. . We must therefore see the upcoming adoption of a law to protect whistleblowers in Senegal not as a threat, but as an opportunity for the media. And as such, we are in line with journalist Alassane Samba Diop who invites the Senegalese media to adapt by improving their content while strengthening their credibility. The role of the whistleblower gives rise to debates and multiple questions.
-All over the world. But recent history marked by the Mediator scandal (Irène Frachon), Internet surveillance by the United States (Edward Snowden), “LuxLeaks” (Frances Haugen) and the Facebook Files (Antoine Deltour) has shown that whistleblowers have become major players in the public space, counter-powers essential to the proper functioning of democracy. Thus comforting Maria Teresa Ronderos who thinks that they must benefit from the same guarantees and protections as those granted to journalists. The co-founder and director of the Latin American Center for Journalistic Investigation is categorical: “Journalism will not survive and will not have the trust of society if it does not collaborate with the best informed people, in particular the launchers of alert “. A necessary collaboration for a major issue: saving the general interest.
By Abdoulaye DIALLO
Related News :