Thread by @mariaressa

(Thread 1/10) It's not enough to be sorry when your work is used to attack journalists in "inconvenient" countries. Journalism research has no integrity if it endangers journalists at risk. How did this "study" fare in South Africa @brankobrkic? Or in Brazil @camposmello?

https://twitter.com/risj_oxford/status/1668771060454506498

(2/6) After 4 years of behind-the-scenes feedback with no substantive changes and no acknowledgement of its harms, you have to ask - what is the purpose of this research? Of the bar graphs that are meant to get attention at our expense. From last year: rappler.com/voices/thought…

(3/6) Excerpt from my email from 7/4/22: "f you don't acknowledge your mistake, you will repeat it - and other more vulnerable news groups may not weather it as well as we can ..."

(4/6) From 7/4/22: " ... because the government and its propaganda machine are now using Oxford University against us (which is the reason RISJ must be beyond reproach, and in this case, you're not - and you will continue to make the same mistake until you acknowledge it)."

(5/8) From 7/4/22: "The graphics you have used through the years are misleading and lack proper labels. The note you quote, “should not be treated as a list of the most trusted brands” is not enough when it's not part of the chart itself."

(6/10) From 7/4/22: "It also then belies why have that chart in the first place for what are - at most - vanity metrics. The way you market the report and its headlines lead to what you call "abuse" but they are natural consequences of this flawed approach."

(7/10) From 7/4/22: "When journalists are under attack, it isn't business as usual for academics studying journalism. This isn't just bad actors manipulating the study; the flaw is in the study itself."

(8/10) Here is an example of one methodology that is more thoughtful, expensive, and time-consuming. You can see how careful the researchers were to do no harm. It was more useful for those of us in the trenches because it went to the root cause: disinformationindex.org/research/

(9/10) Here is the Philippines and the news groups it covered. Key takeaway: "Around 1 in 3 domains were assessed to present a high risk of disinformation." disinformationindex.org/country-studie…

(10/10) Each news group was given its own report, which laid out in more detail what it could do to improve performance on specific goals. These individual news group reports were not released publicly.