Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction
Amnesty International's process for coming to their conclusions isn't beyond criticism and has lost a lot of the plot since the end of the Cold War. They are known to cozy up to morally questionable regimes in order to get access and maintain a presence. They have had reporters in the past who were caught red handed being in the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas. They have also backtracked on criticizing Russian aggression. After Putin threatened to shut them down in Russia, they took the "both sides, many sides" stance and even took Navalny off their list of prisoners of conscience before his death. They were also caught using altered and AI generated images on their social media not that long ago. There are also reports from ex-employees of the organization having a toxic work environment and internal bullying of their correspondents.
They rely heavily on individual accounts of people who obviously have a bias and can't be relied on as impartial witnesses. Like if someone says they aren't a terrorist and wrongfully imprisoned, they take it at face value.
It's not just them either. Many activist organizations are competitive with each other and all want the most sensationalist scoops, and will bend the narrative to get the most attention.
Like any media source, there is information they provide that can be useful, but people should keep in mind they they are not providing a full or unbiased perspective.
|
Instead of criticizing their process or their findings, you just recited the “Criticisms of Amnesty International” wikipedia page instead. And if you’d read it closer, you’d wouldn’t have left out the context of some of these criticisms.
Do you have an issue with the report, or not?