Can publicity reduce retaliation against whistleblowers?

Snezana Kovacevic, from Serbia’s University of Belgrade, was the recipient of an honorable mention of the inaugural Lewis Master Thesis Award. She discusses her thesis, “Publicity as a Mechanism for the Protection of Whistleblowers”, and her findings in this blog post.

My master’s thesis, “Publicity as a Mechanism for the Protection of Whistleblowers”, developed directly out of my professional work. For more than 12 years, I worked as a journalist at Pištaljka (The Whistle), an organization in Serbia dedicated to investigative reporting on whistleblowing. During this time, I reported on whistleblowers from different fields and authored more than 200 stories, as part of the more than 1,000 articles Pištaljka has published on the subject. This experience led me to ask a question that law alone could not answer: beyond formal protections, what role might publicity play in protecting whistleblowers?

Although whistleblowing brings important financial and non-financial benefits to states and societies, it is rarely risk-free. It often emerges as an individual act of resistance against the misconduct of powerful figures who misuse their position, influence, or authority, and it is frequently met with retaliation. Examining mechanisms for protecting whistleblowers therefore cannot be reduced solely to an analysis of legal provisions. It is also necessary to consider the wider social context and the possible role of public exposure in contributing to their protection.

Research methods

Serbia provides particularly relevant ground for this type of study, since it has both a developed legal framework and extensive practice in applying it. The number of whistleblower-related court cases runs into the hundreds, which demonstrates institutional engagement but also suggests the need to explore what, beyond legislation, might be necessary to prevent retaliation more effectively.

“The central question of my thesis was whether, and in what circumstances, publicity can help reduce retaliation against whistleblowers. The analysis focused on two main effects of retaliation: silencing the individual whistleblower and deterring potential whistleblowers.”

The significance of publicity was examined from two perspectives: that of whistleblowers themselves and that of media coverage. My media analysis covered the period from 2010 to 2021, beginning when whistleblowing became a public issue in Serbia and legal reform efforts began. The research sample comprised newspaper articles from around 20 publications, accessed via the publicly available Ebart Media Archive, which contains articles from Serbia’s most widely circulated print media. Articles were selected using the keywords “whistleblower” and the names of well-known whistleblowers. In total, 962 articles were examined.

Content analysis was used as the primary method, with each article treated as a unit of analysis. Articles were coded for general parameters (such as date, year, outlet, and genre) and whistleblowing-specific parameters (such as theme, sector, case, whistleblower, publicity, retaliation, and source). Publicity was categorized as positive, negative, or neutral, depending on the article’s framing and tone.

Research findings

My analysis showed that in Serbia the term “whistleblower” generally carried a positive connotation. Only 7% of the articles examined portrayed whistleblowers in a negative light. In the few cases where this occurred, the negative portrayal was linked to questioning their legitimacy and describing them as “fake whistleblowers.”

Between 2010 and 2021, newspapers reported on more than 50 different whistleblowers. A noticeable increase in reported cases occurred after 2019, when over 10 new whistleblowers came forward following intensive media coverage of earlier cases.

“Although the media often reported on retaliatory measures such as arrests or dismissals, publicity around individual cases sometimes encouraged others in similar situations to speak out. This suggests that publicity may help to counter one of the underlying aims of retaliation: discouraging future whistleblowing.”

In-depth interviews with three whistleblowers supported this view. They described publicity as a form of recognition, particularly in cases where official institutions had not acknowledged them. They felt that publicity offered a degree of protection, largely because perpetrators were concerned about public reaction and possible condemnation. This was reinforced by the generally positive media coverage of whistleblowers during the period under review.

Main takeaway

Publicity is not a substitute for legal protections, but it can play a complementary role. For some whistleblowers, being visible can act as a form of shield, as those responsible for misconduct may fear negative public reaction. The role of journalists is especially important in this process, since their credibility can lend legitimacy to whistleblowers’ accounts and help to generate wider public support.

The views expressed in this blog post are solely those of the author and do not represent the European Whistleblowing Institute.