Good point. The world is full of similarities with vast differences: There are oranges and mandarins, there humans with blonde hair and black hair, red and brown they're all humans but with vast differences.
The difference between whistle blowing and maliciously leaking information is one is designed to protect against dangerous or immoral acts and the other is leaking information maliciously to cause damage or embarrassment.
The Whistle blower act wasn’t intended to obfuscate an employer’s established rules, policies, regulations or laws unless it presents an imminent danger to public or employees are forced to view pornography for example in my opinion.
Unless the Whistle Blower can prove the employer’s established rules, policies, regulations or laws were dangerous to the public in my opinion and if an employee does attempt, they will find themselves facing the full-weight of the legal U.S. government behind their defense against you with some of the most hardened government lawyers with endless resources in my opinion.
Obviously nobody can reasonably think leaking governmental secrets to the press is somehow protected under the Whistle Blowers act, if they do, they need their head examined, in my opinion.
As a reader, I am familiar with an author or two who had to have their books scrutinized by some government agencies who would redact something they didn't approve of before the books went into publication for public consumption.
I know the Whistle blower act is used in racial or sexual discrimination or harassment cases.