In general the UKs mainstream media has its style of preference of the type of whistleblowers that they will opt to trust. They normally tend to prefer senior Caucasian doctors. If they can opt for a male caucasian, they often do. If not, they will pick a senior female. This is about who the media percieve as truth tellers without question. Consultants tend to make journalists all starry eyed. In their eyes, all consultants tell the truth. Ofcourse, not everyone tells the truth and each story must be double and treble checked. Unchecked senior tales of woe have often gone without fact checking. When the stories do not come up to the evidential mark, they are merely moved to one side to make way for yet another similar story. The public isn't given the final outcome. At present, the only aspect of whistleblowers doctors featured by the media are suspensions post whistleblowing. Ofcourse, employment law is complex and weighing the evidence before the court judgment has its risk. The UKs all time favourite media senior consultant male Caucasian whistleblower is Dr David Drew. Yet, the he has never won any of his cases. Nevertheless, we are asked to believe what the media tell us so I guess the public is more likely to believe a senior doctor rather than a junior one. The myth propagated by many consultants is that their career is over. Well, the media fails to tell us that many consultants opt to retire in their mid 50s with a preserved pension and secondly they can work privately and earn a fair bit. Juniors on the other hand can't have any of this if they raise concerns It's a fact of life that authorities believe that Caucasians are more likely to be truthful. There is no comparative evidence for this but nevertheless it's always been the case. This has to be an accepted fact of life whether it's addressed or not. Ofcourse, its also true that minority groups and juniors have to prove their evidence time and time again. They are also questioned far more than any Caucasian senior would be. My way of an example here, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/doctors-call-for-code-to-protect-whistleblowers-2306990.html is an article demonstrating my point. This article related to our paper. I was second author in it. I happen to have helped construct the paper, develop it, suggested the publication and it was my idea to add the third and fourth authors. They were added last minute. What is interesting here is the Independent editors preferred to request comments from the two British Caucasian authors. One came in last minute, that was Peter Wilmshurst. I wasn't even asked to comment. Nevertheless, I did make a few remarks on the foot of the newspaper in the comments section. These were all removed over time. I asked the editor why this was done but he remains silent on the issue. The paper also implies there were only two authors when there were four. Their selection criteria is fascinating. A paper that claims not to be biased can be seen to be prefer senior doctors preferably Caucasian. The editor could ofcourse bleat that this is sour grapes on my part but I do like to observe the preference on ethnicity and seniority. Here, its clear that the Independent believes that seniors Caucasians command the greatest attention while just junior minority group doctors slaving in the background to put the paper together can be set aside. Infact in this case, the Independent erased my existence all together. Ofcourse, I do exist and continue to do so. The last days of the Raj are over and I'm here to state facts about poor treatment and favourism. Similarly, while the Independent was featuring the words of David Drew, I was writing my submission ( now published) for the United Nations. There was no reporting of that. I found it odd that after being the mouthpiece for Patients First, the whistleblowing group, the Independents editor failed to feature the fact that Patient Firsts website had disappeared offline. It should have headlined these events in 20 point Times New Roman font. It should have also featured what Patients Firsts sponsors, Peter Wilmshurst and Professor Bolsin were doing about all this down time. The Independent doesn't appear so keen to feature this or the fact their cherry picked whistleblowing spokesman, David Drew was facing litigation. If we calculated the number of junior whistleblowers featured by the Independent, the total would be zero. If we featured the Caucasian versus Minority group whistleblowers featured, the majority would be Caucasian senior and male. This is just one newspaper. If we do a survey of other papers, we would discover that there were no junior doctors featured as whistleblowers. We could either take that to mean there are no juniors whistleblowing which is unrealistic or we could conclude that the UK media refuses to publish or address the problems facing junior doctors. We would be unrealistic to think we live in a fair world. We actually live in a world where the whistleblowers we are asked to look up to are senior white males. It's time the media featured whistleblowers irrespective of ethnicity and based on evidence. If news papers like the Independent are keen on bleating about equality then they should be fair in their reporting and certainly not partisan towards certain seniority and ethnicity.