Australia

Riddle me this then: Why would he hand evidence of war crimes being committed to a journalist if HE wanted people to know that soldiers weren't committing war crimes?

That Four Corners episode came out fairly recently. Tell me, what motives would Dan Oakes, an investigative journalist with a reputation, have to disparage a whistleblower who is about to be prosecuted? I dunno, maybe he doesn't want to be the target of prosecution himself and distancing from him is protection?

Why do you keep referring to the BBC article? It's quite poorly worded and oversimplified for an international audience. You won't find many articles about David McBride's motives from before the case because he was secret then, the ABC gave him up.

Same article:

Much has been made of McBride’s reasons for going to the media, but this focus on motives is a form of misdirection. Whistleblowers take action for a host of reasons – some of them less honourable than others. But ultimately, what matters is the truth of what they expose, rather than why.

That is why we recognise media freedom as an essential part of a healthy democracy, including the right – indeed the responsibility – of journalists to protect confidential sources. Unless sources who see wrongdoing can confidently expose it without fear of being exposed and prosecuted, the system of accountability falls apart and gross abuses of power remain hidden.

It is also why the formal name for Australia’s whistleblower protection law is the “Public Interest Disclosure Act”.

This law is designed to do what it says on the tin: protect disclosures made in the public interest, including those made through the media. It recognises that sometimes, even when the law imposes certain obligations of secrecy on public servants, there may be an overriding interest in exposing wrongdoing for the sake of our democracy.

.As a highly trained and experienced military lawyer, McBride knew it was technically illegal to give classified documents to the media. The law is very clear about that, and for good reason. Nobody should be able to publish government secrets without a very powerful justification.

But nor should the fact that a bureaucrat has put a “secret” stamp on a document be an excuse for covering up serious crimes and misdemeanours.

In McBride’s case, the judge accepted the first premise, but rejected the second.