Final answer:
Informing the press or government officials about unethical practices is known as whistleblowing. Whistleblowing is crucial for exposing issues and holding organizations accountable, but it also brings risks to the whistleblower. It is different from a gag order, subpoena, or contempt of court.
Step-by-step explanation:
Informing the press or government officials about unethical practices within one's organization is known as whistleblowing. Whistleblowers often provide crucial information that can lead to investigation and reform, facing significant personal risks in the process. Acts of whistleblowing have garnered attention for exposing major issues, such as the Watergate scandal and the release of information by Edward Snowden regarding U.S. internal surveillance programs.
The right to report wrongdoing is a vital part of government and corporate accountability. Courts sometimes subpoena journalists to reveal their sources as part of criminal investigations. While the press has some protections under the First Amendment, landmark court cases like Branzburg v. Hayes and the jailing of New York Times reporter Judith Miller for refusing to reveal a source illustrate the complex balance between a journalist's right to protect their sources and legal obligations.
Whistleblowing stands in contrast to a gag order, which is a legal order restricting information from being made public, a subpoena, which is a document that orders someone to attend a court proceeding, and contempt of court, which is a charge against someone for disobeying a court order or disrupting court proceedings.