Read on Twitter
I'm making this thread to both defend and criticise @amaBhungane from recent criticisms.
If you aren't up to speed, read this article they put up on @hostilenativ: https://amabhungane.org/stories/battleground-social-media-how-disinformation-propaganda-and-manipulation-shape-our-online-discourse/
Then read this response by @NchabelengAdil: https://www.iol.co.za/news/opinion/i-was-targeted-by-amabhunganes-agent-journalists-48308759 [1/14]
If you aren't up to speed, read this article they put up on @hostilenativ: https://amabhungane.org/stories/battleground-social-media-how-disinformation-propaganda-and-manipulation-shape-our-online-discourse/
Then read this response by @NchabelengAdil: https://www.iol.co.za/news/opinion/i-was-targeted-by-amabhunganes-agent-journalists-48308759 [1/14]
We begin in 2018
amaB wrote about the influence of "money-men" at NUMSA, notably @KhandaniM
They had records to show NUMSA was in financial crisis, but they relied entirely on anonymous insiders for their primary claim that NUMSA was turning to these "money-men" and the ANC /2
amaB wrote about the influence of "money-men" at NUMSA, notably @KhandaniM
They had records to show NUMSA was in financial crisis, but they relied entirely on anonymous insiders for their primary claim that NUMSA was turning to these "money-men" and the ANC /2
Vavi is on-record saying the NIC paid for a jazz trip, but the amaB claims there were more "suspicious payments" to allies of Irvin Jim, but that info is anonymous. Their anon sources also stated that @KhandaniM set up many questionable meetings with ANC leaders. /3
They show meetings happened but can only "allege" that @KhandaniM was present or arranged them. It's suspicious, but that's all we can confirm from the reporting.
The problem is that we can't draw a certain conclusion. They don't have a single source on record.
The problem is that we can't draw a certain conclusion. They don't have a single source on record.
amaB proves that their questions to Jim were sent to a WhatsApp group and spread around. That's where @hostilenativ comes in.
amaB proves that before the story dropped, @hostilenativ tweeted half the #HandsOffNumsa tweets before the story even dropped. /4
amaB proves that before the story dropped, @hostilenativ tweeted half the #HandsOffNumsa tweets before the story even dropped. /4
amaB further proves that @hostilenativ was on the payroll of the very "money-men" the article was criticising. So here's someone rallying their many followers against a story which implicates them.
amaB needs no anonymous sources here. they prove this article with record /5
amaB needs no anonymous sources here. they prove this article with record /5
amaB reveals they had a confrontational call with @hostilenativ in writing the story
According to @NchabelengAdil, he also received a call from amaB and he compares this to being interrogated by the police
amaB did promise to release another story /6
According to @NchabelengAdil, he also received a call from amaB and he compares this to being interrogated by the police
amaB did promise to release another story /6
in both accounts, it does seems like the phones calls are confrontational, but the best way prove this is if amaB releases the transcripts of the calls.
then we can judge if amaB journalists are indeed interrogating their sources like police
but there's no proof right now /7
then we can judge if amaB journalists are indeed interrogating their sources like police
but there's no proof right now /7
@NchabelengAdil gives us no evidence to back up their claims against amaB. It's just speculation at the moment if there is no proof.
So we have amaB speculating about NUMSA and we have people on phone calls speculating about amaB. There's not enough proof in both cases /8
So we have amaB speculating about NUMSA and we have people on phone calls speculating about amaB. There's not enough proof in both cases /8
I do think both stories are likely. It is likely that NUMSA is corrupted by capital and it is likely that amaB journalists are overly-interrogating their sources
but it's incorrect to say amaB proved nothing in their reporting. there is much they were able to prove. /9
but it's incorrect to say amaB proved nothing in their reporting. there is much they were able to prove. /9
the problem is that their core claim is only proved by anon. sources, which is not helpful.
this sort of "trust us because we've seen the documents" reporting does not work if people don't trust you. right now, there is a lack of trust in media
anon. sources make this worse /10
this sort of "trust us because we've seen the documents" reporting does not work if people don't trust you. right now, there is a lack of trust in media
anon. sources make this worse /10
I understand that often sources don't want to go on record and some stories are too important to not publish. I'm not saying amaB should withhold these stories.
But it's fair for the implicated parties to point out that there is no on-record source. /11
But it's fair for the implicated parties to point out that there is no on-record source. /11
It is not fair for implicated parties to ignore whatever is proved on-record. It's also not true that implicated parties are themselves immune from criticism, especially when there is proof that they rally against media articles they are implicated in. /12
Moreover, journalists must investigate implicated parties and they don't have to be "nice." But at the same time, they should not behave like police.
Most importantly, claims needs proof. One can't expect us to believe amaB are 'StratCom' just because one says so. /13
Most importantly, claims needs proof. One can't expect us to believe amaB are 'StratCom' just because one says so. /13
In all of this, I will continue to read amaB and accept whatever it is that they do prove. But I cannot accept what they don't prove.
To say everything they prove is incorrect is absurd. If something is proved, then it must be unproved, not ignored. [14/14]
To say everything they prove is incorrect is absurd. If something is proved, then it must be unproved, not ignored. [14/14]
