In Episode 107 of the Good Scribes Only Podcast, hosts Daniel Breyer and Jeremy Streich take on the theme of whistleblowers—those who speak up against powerful systems despite the personal cost. Inspired by themes from Small Things Like These by Claire Keegan, they discuss the courage it takes to go against the grain, the moral dilemmas involved, and the difficult choices people face when deciding whether to speak out.
Through humor, philosophical musings, and hypothetical scenarios, Daniel and Jeremy explore why some people choose to be whistleblowers while others remain silent.
The conversation begins with a lighthearted but thought-provoking question: Would you blow the whistle on someone you know personally?
Jeremy offers various hypothetical scenarios:
“It’s so abstract to say you’d blow the whistle,” Jeremy says. “It all depends on the context and what you stand to lose.”
Daniel admits he’s generally conflict-averse and would hesitate to speak up unless violence or severe harm was involved. The conversation highlights how personal relationships and stakes influence whether someone decides to speak out.
The discussion naturally returns to Small Things Like These, where Bill Furlong, the protagonist, must decide whether to speak up about the abuses happening at the Magdalene Laundries. The townspeople are aware of the injustice but choose to look the other way, prioritizing social harmony and economic survival over doing what’s right.
“Furlong’s dilemma is about more than just morality—it’s about survival. Speaking up could ruin him financially and socially,” Daniel explains.
Whistleblowing often comes with severe repercussions, whether personal, financial, or social. The hosts discuss how modern whistleblowers, from Edward Snowden to corporate insiders, face ostracism and legal consequences despite having society’s best interests at heart.
“We like to think we’d do the right thing, but when the cost becomes real—when it threatens your livelihood or your family—it’s a much harder choice,” Jeremy notes.
Daniel agrees, pointing out that whistleblower protection laws are essential for encouraging people to come forward. But even with legal protection, the social consequences can be just as damaging.
The conversation shifts to everyday situations—when speaking up is less about systemic corruption and more about interpersonal ethics. Would you report a friend’s wrongdoing if it meant destroying their life?
Jeremy admits that he’d feel compelled to report serious crimes, but would likely try to convince a friend to correct their mistakes before resorting to legal authorities. Daniel, meanwhile, emphasizes his desire to avoid conflict wherever possible.
“I want to protect my time and my peace,” Daniel jokes. “But the idea of letting something truly awful go unaddressed would eat away at me.”
As the episode continues, the hosts dig deeper into what makes whistleblowing so complicated. They discuss how societal norms, personal relationships, and financial incentives all play roles in whether someone decides to speak out.
Jeremy compares whistleblowers to early abolitionists, who were often ostracized for speaking out against slavery but are now seen as moral heroes.
“It’s easy to judge someone’s actions decades later when you’re not the one risking everything,” Jeremy argues.
Daniel adds that moral outrage can sometimes come with unintended consequences, such as activists whose methods alienate the very people they’re trying to persuade.
The episode concludes with a reflection on how whistleblowing intersects with broader social issues. Whether it’s speaking out against institutional corruption, confronting personal wrongdoing, or standing up for a just cause, the decision to act—or remain silent—is never straightforward.
Jeremy’s closing thoughts sum it up well:
“It’s one thing to say you’d do the right thing. It’s another to actually do it when the stakes are real.”
For more insights on whistleblowers, morality, and the difficult decisions that define us, tune in to Episode 107 of the Good Scribes Only Podcast.
