4

Are reports of Human Rights Watch reviewed by external authorities before they are published? Who verifies the veracity of the information present in their reports? Are evidences and citations presented in these reports audited?

  • 1
    Yeah... Their reports on Kashmir. – nk379 Sep 7 '16 at 10:30
  • 3
    Different organizations have different quality assurance practices. I reduced the question to one of the two organizations you mentioned to keep the scope manageable. You might want to open a second question about Amnesty International. I removed the "was there any controversy" part because pretty much every report by a human rights organization generates some controversy. When this part was important to you, you might want to make it more specific, like for example asking about cases where reports they made turned out to be undeniable flat out wrong. – Philipp Sep 7 '16 at 11:22
  • 2
    I wanted to know if these reports could be politically motivated. These reports are cited in Wikipedia articles. The organisation gets funding from various countries, so some countries could give some extra $'s to promote their agenda maybe? – nk379 Sep 7 '16 at 18:03
  • 3
    @Rathony - because both HRW and AI are intensely political organizations, AND their findings are used for political purposes beyond their own intentions as well – user4012 Sep 8 '16 at 0:37
  • 2
    @user4012 So? Is asking "Are reports of Human Rights Watch reviewed by external authorities before they are published?" on-topic? Are reports of U.N.'s organizations reviewed by external authorities? Are reports of a US senate committee reviewed by external authorities? – Rathony Sep 8 '16 at 6:47
1

Are reports of Human Rights Watch reviewed by external authorities before they are published?

They probably try, but it's often not possible to determine if testimony is authentic or not. The New York Times has an article in which the founder of Human Rights Watch, R.L. Bernstein, explains the difficulty:

But how does Human Rights Watch know that these laws have been violated? In Gaza and elsewhere where there is no access to the battlefield or to the military and political leaders who make strategic decisions, it is extremely difficult to make definitive judgments about war crimes. Reporting often relies on witnesses whose stories cannot be verified and who may testify for political advantage or because they fear retaliation from their own rulers.

If they have additional evidence to back up some claim I'm sure they put it in (if at all possible) because that improves their report. If there is no additional evidence mentioned in the report / article then I think you should assume the worst: a single source that has not been verified.

-1

< Are evidences and citations presented in these reports audited?

Not to my knowledge.

As a general rule, you should treat those NGOs with a grain of salt. Many times, they follow the money just like every other biased sources do.

Not that different from your approaching the mainstream media (MSM), or the internet, or any other sources of information. Always be a critical thinker.

  • 2
    Can you back up your claim? For example with any examples where reports from Human Rights Watch were later proven to be wrong? – Philipp Jan 21 '17 at 10:25
  • 4
    Your claim is "you should treat those ngos with a grain of salt. many times, they follow the money just like every other biased sources do". But note that not having a claim at all but only a personal opinion doesn't make your answer any better. We expect answers to are backed up by facts and references and not just be opinions. – Philipp Jan 21 '17 at 10:58
  • 2
    I am not your enemy. I am just trying to help you to write better and more helpful answers. – Philipp Jan 21 '17 at 11:06
  • 3
    Please stop accusing Philipp of making a claim that he did not make. Also, this isn't a discussion forum but a question and answer site. You implied that NGOs are unreliable. He suggested a way of showing that. You act like he is your enemy. He pointed out that he wasn't trying to oppose you but to suggest a way that your answer could meet minimal site standards. Please don't mistake helpful criticism for bullying. – Brythan Jan 21 '17 at 18:56
  • 3
    This is a poor answer. There are no audits of the Human Rights Watch to the OP's knowledge either, otherwise it wouldn't make sense to even ask this question. If you are certain that there are no auditors, and you have good reason to believe that, then tell us what that reason is so that we can be more confident in this answer. Otherwise, I have to interpret this answer as a vague "I don't know, probably not." – Sam I am Jan 22 '17 at 7:19
-3

The reports and accompanying pictures of Human Rights Watch are not reviewed by independent institutions or authorities to validate their truthfulness and authenticity.

The CEO of Human Rights Watch, Ken Roth and his wife Dr. Annie Sparrow, are proven to have used faked images respectively misattributed images to support their claim of atrocities being committed by government forces in Syria.

HRW can be seen as a part of the propaganda media machine in the aim to force a regime change in Syria.

  • 1
    Unless you can have a citation to back up that claim, speculating about all "so called" human rights organizations is not appropriate here. – indigochild Dec 21 '16 at 14:04
  • 6
    This is just a tweet from a personal account. It is reasonable to assume that official reports by HRW (which the question explicitly asks about) are subject to far more scrutiny. As long as this answer can not provide evidence for falsification in an official report published by HRW, it does not hold up to our standards. – Philipp Dec 21 '16 at 15:38
  • Furthermore, he did not use "faked images", but rather simply misattributed the source of an image. – Fluidized Pigeon Reactor Feb 21 '17 at 22:43

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.