War on
Whistleblowers: Free Press and the National Security State is a US documentary
film from 2013. Here is some basic information about it:
** Produced by
Brave New Films
** Directed by
Robert Greenwald
** Run time: 65
minutes
PART ONE
This film presents
four cases that originated from four whistleblowers. The testimonies offered by
the four whistleblowers are supplemented by interviews with several reporters
and several experts, including Daniel Ellsberg and Seymour Hersh.
** Case # 1 by
Franz Gayl is about the US Army and equipment used in Iraq
** Case # 2 by
Thomas Drake is about the NSA and uncontrolled spying on US citizens
** Case # 3 by
Michael DeKort is about the US Coast Guard and equipment used for rescue
operations
** Case # 4 by
Thomas Tamm is about the NSA and illegal wiretapping of US citizens
The director of
the film wants us to know the difference between leaking and whistleblowing.
When information
is leaked, it means that a secret is handed to the media, often classified
information, and this is done with a specific political purpose, for instance
to embarrass someone or to make someone look good.
Whistleblowing is
different. An employee becomes aware of a serious problem - e.g. waste, fraud
or abuse - in a public institution or a private company. The employee tries to
use the official chain of command to draw attention to the problem, but it is
in vain. The warning is ignored. Then, after much hesitation, the employee
decides to become a whistleblower.
He or she contacts
one or several reporters, who will cover the problem. In most cases, the secret
that is revealed, is not classified information. And the purpose of going
public is not political; it is to benefit the people, to make sure that
taxpayers money is spent in a sensible way or to make sure that the rights of
citizens are respected.
The whistleblower
knows that going public is most likely a career suicide. This is not something
that is done for personal gain, but because the person feels that he or she
cannot remain silent anymore.
PART TWO
On Rotten Tomatoes it has a rating of 60
per cent.
On IMDb it has a rating of 74 per cent.
I understand the positive
reviews, and I agree with them.
This is an important film about an important topic.
I do, however, have one critical comment regarding the structure of the film.
Since director
Robert Greenwald wants to present four cases, I would expect the structure of
the film to be as follows:
Case # 1, case #
2, case # 3, and case # 4. One after the other. At the end, after these four
case studies, there should be a section in which the topic is discussed in
a general way. But this is not how the film is put together.
Case # 1 is
presented without interruptions, from the beginning to the end (as it should be). But the
remaining three cases are not presented one by one. They are mixed up. We meet
whistleblower # 2, but before his case is presented, we meet whistleblower # 3,
who has another case. And before his case is presented, we meet whistleblower #
4, whose case is almost the same as case # 2. This structure is confusing.
I think it would
have been better to take these cases one by one and not mix them up. I want to
follow one whistleblower and his case from the beginning to the end before we
move to the next whistleblower and the next case. I think the editor made an
unfortunate choice when he decided that the presentation of the last three
cases should be mixed up and not taken one by one.
I also think the
pace of the film is too fast. Many clips are very short. If you ask me, they
are too short. When a witness appears, the name and affiliation appears on the
screen (which is helpful). It takes a moment to read this information. When I
have read this information, I am ready to listen to the witness, but by then
the clip is already finished, so I almost miss the message this witness has to
offer.
In my opinion, the
editor of the film should have given the viewer a bit more time with each
witness that is interviewed. There are too many soundbites: five seconds and cut!
Ten seconds and cut! Why does the editor insist on going so fast? I believe the
editor as well as the director want us to understand what is being said here, so
why don’t they give us the time we need to process the contents of the film?
PART THREE
There is good news
and bad news here. The bad news is that the employee was unable to get anywhere
using the official chain of command. The warning was ignored. The good news is
that the story was eventually made public and in some cases, the warning was
taken seriously and the problem was solved (but this did not happen in all
cases).
The good news also
is that some reporters and some media outlets were prepared to listen and bring
the story to the public. Some of them appear as witnesses in this film.
For the
whistleblowers there is also good news and bad news. The bad news is that that
they suffered, because they lost their jobs. Their families also suffered,
because it was difficult for the whistleblowers to provide for their families
in the same way as they had done before.
The good news is
that the whistleblowers survive and that they are able to tell their story.
They have a clear conscience, but they paid a high price for doing the right
thing.
CONCLUSION
I like this film
and I want to give it a good rating, but there is a flaw which cannot be ignored. I
have to remove one star because of this. This is why I think it deserves a rating
of four stars.
War on
Whistleblowers is an important film about an important topic. If you are
interested in the history of the modern world – in particular the question of
freedom and human rights – then this film is something for you.
PS # 1. For more
information and more details, see the following items:
** The Spy Factory
(2009). This is an episode in the PBS program NOVA that focuses on the history
of science and technology (season 36, episode 11)
** United States
of Secrets (2014). This is an episode of the PBS program Frontline which
focuses on the news (season 32, episodes 9 and 10)
** Citizen Four
(2014). This is a documentary film about Edward Snowden directed by Laura
Poitras
PS # 2. To find more
details, you can visit the website of the company behind the film. Here is a
link: Brave New Films.
PS # 3. The
following article is available online:
Dana Liebelson,
Mother Jones,
10 April 2013.
*****
No comments:
Post a Comment