Lol Amnesty's latest report on Xinjiang notes in its methodology section (the only part that matters) that "nearly all" interviewees are being kept anonymous, making it impossible to independently verify their stories or validate their credibility, possible ulterior motives, etc.
This is the oldest trick in the human rights propaganda playbook, and it is used *extensively* in reports on places like the DPRK.
https://twitter.com/izak_novak/status/1007348675822186497?s=20
The report argues this is because of "risks" to people criticizing the government including "journalists." Their source for this claim about "journalists"? Radio Free Asia. Of course, you wouldn't know this "journalist" was from RFA unless you read the footnote (I wonder why?) 
In fact, RFA is is cited at least 13 times throughout the report. HRW is cited at least 30 times. BBC at least 10. CNN at least 8. Foreign Policy at least 7. NYT at least 24. Buzzfeed at least 10. And so on and so on. Any pretense to this being "neutral" is out the window.
Oh, and they of course do the atrocity propaganda classic of pointing at satellite images of buildings as if that proves anything.
So what are we left with? A bunch of unverifiable anonymous testimony and a huge amount of recycled Western propaganda sources.
So what are we left with? A bunch of unverifiable anonymous testimony and a huge amount of recycled Western propaganda sources.
Imagine unironically referring to RFA workers as "journalists" and pretending to be an objective/neutral observer.
Oh, actually, it's worse than I initially thought. I must have misread this section. They actually are using pseudonyms for *all* cases.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
