The Informant! is not representative of whistleblowers, but it is an opportunity for dialogue
The Informant! is a new movie that plays the price-fixing crimes of ADM, and the embezzlement of whistleblower Mark Whitacre, for airy comedy. The original music track by Marvin Hamlisch gives an upbeat 1960's feel to this 1990's corporate crime drama.
The producers of The Informant! provided a screening of their new film for whistleblower advocates in Washington, DC. They hope to start a dialogue about what their film can contribute to the whistleblower cause. It is a serious endeavor spawned from a film that looks for laughs. Then again, whether we can reach deeper insights, and wider audiences, while laughing is itself a serious question. The informant! is opening tonight.
As a work for story telling, The Informant! is as complex and ironic as its subject matter. Matt Damon plays Mark "Corky" Whitacre, a biochemist who rose to management in ADM's Decatur, Illinois, plant that manufactures lysine, a corn derivative. He is asked to participate in management's meetings with other lysine manufacturers around the world to fix the supply and pricing. After he reports to his boss how a Japanese competitor has claimed to have a corporate mole in ADM and has made an extortion demand, management decides to ask the FBI to investigate. They agree to have his work telephone line at home monitored for evidence of this extortion. Mark is nervous. His wife demands that he tell the FBI the truth, not just about the extortion, but about the price fixing. Finally, she makes clear -- either you tell them or I will. He does. Thus begins over two years of cooperation with the FBI's investigation, including surreptitious tape recording.
All the while, we are hearing Mark's inner thoughts. Not as deep as Jack Handey's thoughts on Saturday Night Live, but thoughts I eventually realized Mark cannot control. He yearns for a good listener. "You don't meet one of those every day," he realizes. Some of the thoughts add to our understanding of Mark, but others are just over my head. Did I mention the anachronistic music?
The filmmaker, Steven Soderbergh, made me laugh at how dense Mark was. This protagonist fails to see how he comes across to others, and what they are going to do in response. This is clearly not the typical whistleblower story. Mark Whitacre did not come forward out of conscience to tell the truth, but rather fell into his role from a series of circumstances. Had he foreseen how events would play out, he would have been crazy to come forward and cooperate the way he did. Indeed, none of the sane characters did come forward. This is a lesson for whistleblower advocates (originally expressed by Mike German of the ACLU): we need better laws that will convince even sane workers that if they come forward, they will have all the force of law to protect them and compensate them for their losses.
Such laws, however, would not have helped Mark Whitacre. His inability to control what he said, to interpose some stopgaps between his thoughts and his actions, made him unsuitable as a government witness. It stymied the efforts of his own lawyer (Tony Hale) to get him the best deal available.
Here is the dilemma for whistleblower activists: Mark Whitacre is not our poster child. He was an extreme example of "not our poster child." As Angela Canterbury of Public Citizen noted, there are plenty of honest and courageous whistleblowers who can speak for us. Some of them even have excellent movies to tell their stories: Silkwood, The Insider, Norma Rae and Soderbergh's own Erin Brockovich come to mind. For me, though, I can still embrace The Informant! as a vehicle to raise the public debate about the need for better whistleblower law. In my experience, every whistleblower client I have ever had as been a human being. The employers we sued typically tried to use this flaw against my clients' claims, but I argue that the law is the law for everyone. If we want every technician in nuclear power plants, every wastewater treatment operator, every truck driver and corporate accountant to know they are protected on matters of public health, safety and integrity, then the blanket of legal protection will necessarily fall on its fair share of psychotics and other human beings with their own unique foibles. If whistleblower laws are to work in attracting sane people to push for the public interest, then they have to know that their status as human being will not deprive them of protection.
"If he loses his job," an FBI agent (Scott Bakula) asks a superior, "will the government be behind him?" In 1996, the superior could not give the right answer. Today our whistleblower laws protect only a few more narrow wedges of our workforce.
If you have the same privilege of seeing The Informant!, you might enjoy looking for the motif of Abraham Lincoln portraits in the scenery. It is a reminder of how ADM's scam arose in the Land of Lincoln, and builds the contrast between Honest Abe and the Land's new inhabitants.
.jpg)
As a long time friend and recent employer of Mark Whitacre, my heart breaks and my emotions boil for the real Mark and Ginger Whitacre that were so poorly portrayed in the "Saturday Night Live" comedy version of The Informant! Then to read misinformed comments like Mr. Renner my emotions again feel the pain for the real life people being judged by narrow minded and poorly informed people. If all that Mr. Renner knows about the real Mark Whitacre is the character so poorly presented by Warner Brothers and the solely entertainment driven Mr. Soderberg, then I guess his uninformed statements have some bases. To say that Mark is "not our poster child" whistleblower is to not understand the depth of Mark's case and the cost paid by he and his family. Is Mark perfect...No! Regardless of the original whistle blowing motivation, did Mark do heroic national service at the expense of his life, career and most of all his family....YES!!
I have looked at a few of the whistleblower cases represented by the NWC and find each one of them to be unique and compelling in their own right. While each individual case has its own human dynamics, at the core of every case is an imperfect human being, willing to risk their personal well being, in an effort to do what is right. It is often common in these kind of life challenges, that it is our very humanity, that makes the individual journeys so compelling. It is so easy to judge others in a critical light and make general statements that are more than misinformed but self righteous in nature. Like "arm chair quarterbacks" of life, people on the outside looking in, often sit back and make self righteous judgments that never consider the pure humanity of the person, fail to understand all the facts and at the end of the day only strive to make themselves look good by tearing others down. We really need to start accepting the humanity of each other and allowing some grace when passing sweeping judgment.
The key point missed in the judgment by Mr. Renner, Ms. Canterbury and the whole of Warner Brothers, is the fact the real Mark Whitacre wore a wire every day for 2 1/2 years undercover for the FBI. Can you take a moment and imagine in your own personal life and job situation, what it would be like wear an informant wire every working day for almost three years? Can you imagine the stress, the fear, the complexity of emotion, the mental exhaustion of leading a double life undercover?? Imagine how your life would change!! The FBI involved in the case have made it clear that their own agents who are trained for undercover work are only allowed to remain undercover for 1 year. The FBI has discovered that the stress of leading a double life undercover takes such a huge emotional and psychological toll on the informant, that any more than a year and the agent begins to crack. In many cases the role of going undercover has been life altering at several levels and in some cases has resulted in suicidal tendencies. Mark Whitacre, was a common untrained citizen who wore a wire for 2 1/2 years and produced hundreds of hours of tapes that lead to a landmark price fixing case. I find it comical that while the very FBI agents assigned to the case proclaim Mark is "a national hero", Mr. Renner has the gall to say that Mark is not a poster child whistle blower. How narrow minded a statement!!
In Mr. Renner's review he quotes Ms. Canterbury who notes "there are plenty of honest and courageous whistleblowers who can speak for us" which implies that Mark is neither honest or courageous. Once again these are comments from a poorly informed individual. I again ask that you judge Mark Whitacre in the light of the real person that wore a wire undercover for 2 1/2 years and not the mindless Hollywood comedy version created by Warner Brothers, Mr. Soderberg and Mr. Skoll. I will give you the fact that Mark was less than honest in several matters and at various stages of his role as an informant. Mark has accepted publicly his failures in his life and this case. Let you without fault cast the first stone. On the other hand to imply that Mark Whitacre was not courageous in his 2 1/2 years of work with the FBI is nothing short of a stupid and misinformed comment.
In separate comments by attorney David Colapinto he states that "In terms of the Whitacre case itself, I thought that it was both entertaining and it was an interesting portrayal of that unique case -- but it should not be confused with what whistle-blowers face on a day-to-day basis." Mr. Colapinto goes on to suggest that "other cases, such as Colleen Rowley's better portrayed the whistleblower experience. "What she did in terms of coming forward on the problems with the failure to report the events of 9/11 was just absolutely incredible."
I am sure that what Ms. Rowley did was "absolutely incredible" as suggested by Mr. Colapinto and I cannot say that I know every aspect of the case, but I have to wonder if Ms. Rowley and other "poster child whistleblowers", had been required to live double lives and wear a wire for 2 1/2 years undercover, while doing their regular jobs, would their portrayal of the whistleblower experience have been the same?
I was reading some of the headlines on the NWC web site. One specific article caught my eye: National Whistleblowers Center Concerned That The Treatment of Mr. Birkenfeld Will Discourage Future Whistleblowers. I took the opportunity to read up on Mr. Birkenfeld. I found that while he played a hugely valuable role in stopping a massive tax fraud scheme in Switzerland, it was determined by the US prosecutor and judge that because Mr. Birkenfeld had not come forth with critical information in a timely manner and had played an initial role in the tax fraud scheme that he should therefore be sentenced to 40 months in prison. All the while those that actually hid the money remain free.
Rightfully so the NWC should be concerned about the discouragement of future whistleblowers based on the treatment of Mr. Birkenfeld. Many times, those that are involved in matters worthy of "blowing the whistle" are not without fault and therefore targets of judgment and potential legal action. In addition to 40 month prison term, I sincerely doubt that Mr. Birkenfeld would make the "whistleblower poster child" list of Mr. Renner and Ms. Canterbury.
Just think, when Mr. Birkenfeld serves his time and strives to rebuild his life, a shallow, money driven Hollywood production company, will buy the story rights to a poorly written fiction novel, they will receive funding from a so called "social entrepreneurship" person, which will team up with a self centered, glory hound director, hire a big name actor to play the lead role and then all together they will make a comedy movie about Mr. Birkenfeld and his case....all in the name of entertainment. Then to top it off, a bunch of self righteous people, that know very little about the person and his life, will submit misinformed blog comments, which say much more about them than the people they strive to judge.
In the words of Warner Brothers..."so there!!!"
Paul,
My heart goes out to you for how you must have felt to see how your friends, Mark and Ginger Whitacre, were depicted in The Informant! Since the main point of my blog post was to give readers a whistleblower advocate's perspective of the movie, my comments were focused on the caricature as portrayed by that movie.
We are in agreement that the movie's comedic purpose detracts from the serious debate about the whistleblower experience. You take issue with the emphasis on Mark Whitacre's embezzlement, and the time he spent in prison for that, when you feel the emphasis should be on how, at great personal risk, he wore a wire for the FBI (and for all of us consumers) for over two years. I appreciate your efforts to push the emphasis in that direction, and I am happy to see your comments posted here in furtherance of that endeavor. Still, his embezzlement is a significant part of his story, both in the movie and in real life, and I believe the public debate is better for consideration of the whole story.
Perhaps we would agree that the movie presents an opportunity to find more public attention for the Whitacres' experience, and to whistleblowing in general. In this context, particularly, I think it is important for prospective whistleblowers to understand that their efforts to help the public interest will not excuse them from any crimes they might commit. Quite the opposite, most whistleblowers need to be extra attentive to cross all their T's and dot all their I's because of the close supervision they receive. It would have been risky for Mark Whitacre, but if he had been open with the FBI from the start about the contracting kickbacks and embezzlement, I would think that the FBI would have been wise to grant him immunity for that in exchange for his cooperation. At that point, though, he would have had to refrain from any further thefts against ADM.
Since I wrote my review of The Informant!, I listened to Ira Glass' comments about the case last weekend on This American Life. He reports that Mark Whitacre attended a premiere of The Informant! Ira Glass reports that Mark laughed many times at the movie, and recognized that he did many stupid things before his bipolar condition was diagnosed and treated. In this context, it seems to me that mental health advocates should be even more upset at The Informant! than some whistleblower advocates are. The producers of The Informant! used as a basis for most of the comedic moments Whitacre's inability to think about how he was coming across to others -- one of his symptoms of the bipolar disorder.
You take issue with my statement that Mark Whitacre is not a "poster child" for the whistleblower cause. I stand by that. A "poster child" is a person selected as a most appealing example of an issue that needs more public support. Ms. Canterbury's point is that when we, as advocates for the whistleblower cause, pick individuals who exemplify the need for better laws and protections for whistleblowers, we should pick representatives who undertook the personal risk for the public good without engaging in thefts for the purpose of enriching themselves. While I agree with this point, I still think that Mark Whitacre's case presents an opportunity for us to understand that even people who have done things that are less than ethical can also do some other things that are highly beneficial -- such as becoming a whistleblower for the public interest and against a massive fraud.
An interesting comparison can be made with Brad Birkenfeld's case. He was the whistleblower at UBS who alerted the IRS to a massive tax evasion scheme. Thanks to Birkenfeld, the U.S. government has now broken the secrecy of Swiss banks, and uncovered billions of dollars of evaded taxes. Before blowing the whistle, Birkenfeld engaged in criminal acts on behalf of and at the direction of his employer UBS, not for personal gain. In addition, Birkenfeld blew the whistle inside his company about the UBS directed criminal activity and urged that it be stopped. When Birkenfeld tried to stop the criminal activity by UBS he was fired. In this context, the government's decision to prosecute Birkenfeld is disappointing since it will discourage others from coming forward when they previously followed orders to commit crimes.
I notice on Mark Whitacre's Wikipedia page that the FBI agents he worked with are now calling for a presidential pardon. That makes sense to me. I think Brad Birkenfeld should also be pardoned. Both served the public interest by turning in information about their employer's crimes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Whitacre
My colleague David Colapinto shares the following with me:
It should be noted that in the bipolar disorder blog it is reported that Mark Whitacre himself has stated publicly that The Informant! is an accurate portrayal and accurately depicts his bizarre behavior resulting from his bipolar condition.
Whitacre told Robinette that he feels the dark comedy of the movie was the best way to handle the story and he is quite happy with Matt Damon’s portrayal. He shares, “The movie’s a lot about the mental illness. Bipolar disorder gets worse when you’re under pressure ... I did a lot of crazy stuff, and they’re showing that bizarre stuff.”
http://bipolar.about.com/b/2009/09/21/the-informant-whitacre-feels-its-an-accurate-portrayal-of-his-bipolar-disorder.htm
Dear Mr. Renner;
Thank you for your follow and your response. Sorry for the delay but since the movie release things have been a bit crazy. Some good and some not so good.
For sure I feel the pain from Mark and Ginger having to deal with this characterization of Mark in the movie. I will not expound on that any further. As I have processed my thoughts in the days following my viewing of the movie, I have found that I am not so angry with what they put in the movie but more the comedy spin they twisted around the story and all the things that they left out. I have spoken at length with the lead FBI agent that was over the case. He brought out very good points in perspective to the movie which focused on the $9 million that Mark embezzled but nothing about the collective fines imposed by the government which were in excess of $1 billion. In addition…he points out that had the price fixing cartel continued unchecked in the years past the case, the collective theft by the cartel from the pockets of the consumer would exceed some $20 billion.
If you have had a chance to read any of the interviews by Mark, he very openly and humble accept full responsibility for the wrongs that he committed and in no ways feels that are justified. One example:
http://www.feedinfo.com/console/PageViewer.aspx?page=1202114&public=yes
In my opinion the movie and many of the blogs fail to give credit for what he did good and only desire to focus on what he did wrong. You state in your reply that I was trying to take the emphasis off of the embezzlement and shift it to other matters. My intention was not to shift the emphasis away from the embezzlement but rather bring balance to the whole story. Your blogs and some of those you quoted only seemed to focus on the negative and not recognize the personal price that Mark and his family paid and the great good that resulted from his efforts. The other issue of balance was the fact that Mark went undercover and wore a wire for 2 ½ years. That is a significant element of this case and many of Mark’s actions were related to the fact that he spent so long undercover. Again the FBI have stressed that the standard cooperating witness is only allowed to wear a wire for 3 weeks. After extensive training their own FBI agents are only allowed to remain undercover for 1 year. Even with training the agents are routinely brought in for counseling and debriefing during the process to avoid many of the resulting mental meltdowns. Mark being untrained was hung out there for 2 ½ with absolutely no support.
I will admit that I am a novice in this informant whistleblower world but I see substantial difference between the individual that in a single event blows the whistle and an individual that wears a wire for 2 ½ years as part of a covert undercover operation. To judge their actions by the same standard and draw the conclusion that they are not the “poster child” kind of whistle blower seems unfair.
Thank you for allowing me to share my thoughts and feelings. I am sure you have plenty to keep you busy so do not feel that you have to entertain my dialog on this matter. Your efforts to work on behalf of whistle blower protection is greatly appreciated.
Sincerely;
Paul
Fortune Magazine has published a report of Mark Whitacre's attendance at The Informant!'s New York Premiere. It is at:
http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/24/news/companies/the_informant_mark_whitacre.fortune/index.htm?section=money_latest