One of the most unusual aspects of being a corporate whistleblower that people do not understand or appreciate is that not only the corporation will fight back, the corporation may also do whatever it takes (whether legally or illegally) to besmirch the whistleblower's reputation.
Don't forget that when a corporation (or any business) is accused of shady dealings and there is a basis in fact for these shady dealings, the corporation has to do what it takes to survive. Unfortunately, as immature as it sounds, sometimes the most effective course of action is to smear the whistleblower's reputation. This can work to a corporation's advantage for at least two reasons:
1. It deflects (or at least attempts to deflect) the attention away from the corporation
2. By throwing mud at the whistleblower, there is always a chance that something will stick. For example, if the smear campaign includes the accusation that the whistleblower is divorced, has kids and is behind on child support payments, and it turns out that the whistleblower really is behind on his child support payments, it makes the whistleblower look bad.
As I said, this is not applying legal arguments nor is it an attempt to apply even moral arguments. These types of smear tactics are straight from a sixth grade schoolyard. Unfortunately, this does not mean that it will not be tried.
Don't forget that when a corporation (or any business) is accused of shady dealings and there is a basis in fact for these shady dealings, the corporation has to do what it takes to survive. Unfortunately, as immature as it sounds, sometimes the most effective course of action is to smear the whistleblower's reputation. This can work to a corporation's advantage for at least two reasons:
1. It deflects (or at least attempts to deflect) the attention away from the corporation
2. By throwing mud at the whistleblower, there is always a chance that something will stick. For example, if the smear campaign includes the accusation that the whistleblower is divorced, has kids and is behind on child support payments, and it turns out that the whistleblower really is behind on his child support payments, it makes the whistleblower look bad.
As I said, this is not applying legal arguments nor is it an attempt to apply even moral arguments. These types of smear tactics are straight from a sixth grade schoolyard. Unfortunately, this does not mean that it will not be tried.
NOTE: THE INFORMATION IN THIS BLOG IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE NOR
IS IT INTENDED TO BE LEGAL ADVICE. IF
THE READER HAS ANY LEGAL QUESTIONS, PLEASE REFER TO AN ATTORNEY.
NOTE: ANY INDIVIDUAL WHO HAS NOT PLED GUILTY TO A CRIME OR
WHO HAS NOT BEEN FOUND GUILTY BY A JUDGE OR JURY IS INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY
AS PER THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
----------à>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>gene
tausk
No comments:
Post a Comment