The article in question was posted in Calcalist with a photo of a smiling Shalev Hulio (NSO founder and CEO) and the title:
"Amnesty clarifies: The list of 50,000 phone numbers is not directly related to NSO"
It went live at 6:15 pm on Wednesday.
2/10
Cherry-picking quotes, the author cast doubt on the list of potential targets selected by NSO clients.
"Amnesty International has never presented this list as a 'NSO Pegasus Spyware List.'"
And later: "This is a list indicative of the interests of the company's clients."
3/10
Watch out for the word "indicative." It will come back later.
4/10
The article was then retweeted by a researcher in Turkey who republished the misleading title and quotes:
"Umm..." he wrote.
5/10
A journalist with more than 70,000 followers retweeted this post, again without context.
6/10
By morning, news that the list was "indicative" of NSO clients rather than "targets of potential surveillance by NSO clients," was everywhere:
An advisor for #Indian Min. of Information & Broadcasting tweeted the story was "laughable."
The counter-narrative was spun.
7/10
@IndiaToday published this information citing the tweet by the journalist with more than 70,000 followers and the title:
"Amnesty says never claimed leaked phone numbers were of NSO Pegasus Spyware list"
8/?
Today, @amnesty shut down these rumours, writing: "Amnesty categorically stands by Pegasus Project data set" and that "the data is irrefutably linked to potential targets of NSO Group’s Pegasus spyware."