I don't see anything misleading in it either, given that I don't see why anyone would look at those kind of whistleblower protections and believe they are anything but a PR exercise.

EDIT: Put another way: I'd believe those kind of whistle-blower protections are meaningful when we see these agencies admitting to past failures that have been brought up and taking proper responsibility and demonstrably taking steps to ensure better oversight. Until then, the safest assumption is that making use of any whistleblowing provisions they claim to have is at best ineffective, at worst dangerous.