4 ms·

Human Rights Watch is biased https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Human_Rights_Watch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Human_Rights_Watc...

cm2187 3y ago
So is the guardian. It's standard operating procedure for militant newspapers to express their own opinion by pretending to report on some random third party expressing them. Typical example is headline in the style of "minister xx condemned for saying yy". And in the body of the article, "condemned" means some random university professor or political activist or even an anonymous tweet quoted saying they really dislike yy. And if the editor of the newspaper likes yy, the headline will instead be "minister xx praised for saying yy". It's all objective reporting of facts!
DiogenesKynikos 3y ago
In the article you linked, the section on antisemitism is mostly about the Anti-Defamation League's (ADL) criticism of HRW. The ADL itself is not exactly unbiased - it's primarily a pro-Israeli lobby group nowadays. HRW is usually criticized for being too closely aligned with American foreign policy. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a notable exception, and HRW's criticism of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians rankles a lot of supporters of Israel.
alexisread 3y ago
So is everything. Did you read the HRW article? There is actual evidence there, in addition to Meta admitting to this censorship 2 years ago.
amadeuspagel 3y ago
To claim that someone is biased is little more then to express your disagreement with them. Your source contains all kinds of mutually contradictory disagreements that various people have with HRW, including for example that "HRW rarely criticizes human rights abuses by the United States and its allies, and almost always reaches conclusions consistent with Western foreign policy positions" but also claims of bias against Israel - a US ally that is overwhelmingly supported by western foreign policy.

cm2187 3y ago

So is the guardian. It's standard operating procedure for militant newspapers to express their own opinion by pretending to report on some random third party expressing them. Typical example is headline in the style of "minister xx condemned for saying yy". And in the body of the article, "condemned" means some random university professor or political activist or even an anonymous tweet quoted saying they really dislike yy. And if the editor of the newspaper likes yy, the headline will instead be "minister xx praised for saying yy". It's all objective reporting of facts!

DiogenesKynikos 3y ago

In the article you linked, the section on antisemitism is mostly about the Anti-Defamation League's (ADL) criticism of HRW. The ADL itself is not exactly unbiased - it's primarily a pro-Israeli lobby group nowadays. HRW is usually criticized for being too closely aligned with American foreign policy. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a notable exception, and HRW's criticism of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians rankles a lot of supporters of Israel.

alexisread 3y ago

So is everything. Did you read the HRW article? There is actual evidence there, in addition to Meta admitting to this censorship 2 years ago.

amadeuspagel 3y ago

To claim that someone is biased is little more then to express your disagreement with them. Your source contains all kinds of mutually contradictory disagreements that various people have with HRW, including for example that "HRW rarely criticizes human rights abuses by the United States and its allies, and almost always reaches conclusions consistent with Western foreign policy positions" but also claims of bias against Israel - a US ally that is overwhelmingly supported by western foreign policy.