I had not heard of Brandon Huber until yesterday, when I read an MSN story – and watched his YouTube video – exposing the unsanitary practices of a Golden Corral in Port Orange, Florida.
(The restaurant has since fired its manager, and insists that they served none of the food in the video to Golden Corral’s patrons.)
There’s bound to be more about this story — the conduct and motivations of Mr. Huber, the conduct of other employees, how management heard about this, etc. Those involved might have done many things differently, without doubt.
And yet, and yet, this course of action was a reasonable one: he made his accusations public, leaving others to decide for themselves the accuracy of his claims and propriety of his conduct.
He might have left this matter with a manager or a local official, but YouTube made it possible for him to reach those few and millions more. Those who would rather his concerns be whispered among only a few are undoubtedly frustrated, angry, or embarrassed, but wouldn’t you rather plainly know from Brandon Huber than blindly assume that a few, secretly informed, would act soundly?
How one answers that question reveals, I think, what one thinks of whistleblowers, generally: would one prefer matters of policy be revelations to all the public, or only to a few?