The seven lies on the cover of Época about Lula

Época magazine, in a note signed by its
chief editor, Diego Escosteguy, on Friday (May 1), reaffirmed that what had
been written in the news story “Lula, the operator” was correct and
true. As its editor’s note reiterates the mistakes committed by the magazine,
we point here the seven main, among many other, lies in the Época story.

First lie – Saying that Lula is being
investigated by federal Public Ministry prosecutors

Época states
that federal Public Ministry prosecutors have opened “an investigation” in
which former President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva was “formally suspected”
of two felonies. Época does
not cite any sources, or the name of the prosecutor in charge of the procedure.

Anticorruption enforcement agency Núcleo
de Combate à Corrupção, linked to the Federal District’s federal
prosecution office, has not opened any sort of investigation about the
activities of former President Lula. Newspaper O Globo, of the same
publishing group, heard in that regard prosecutor Mirella Aguiar about the
process thus far and she clarified the matter: there is a “preliminary
procedure”, derived from an inquiry by a single prosecutor, a “notice of fact”,
which might develop into an investigation or inquiry, or may simply be
dismissed.

The same distinction was made by newspaper The New York
Times and news agency Bloomberg. The New York Times
called it a “preliminary step”, not an investigation.

This is not a detail and, for those who value factual accuracy, it does
make a difference from the legal and journalistic point of view.

By only publishing partially the heading of a federal prosecution
agency’s document, without mentioning the names of prosecutor Anselmo Lopes, who
started the initiative, and of prosecutor Mirella, who carried on with the
procedure by virtue of her office, and without showing what the procedure
is actually about, Época seeks to deliberately mislead its
readers.

Second lie – Lula as an alleged lobbyist

In the beginning of the story the magazine recalls a fact: Lula left
power in January 2011 with high ratings and, since then, has not held any
public office. According to the magazine, Lula would be lobbying to favor “his
clients”. It must be made clear that, just as we answered to the magazine, the former
president is a speaker, not a lobbyist or consultant.

Magazine Época placed all the answers given by the
people and organizations mentioned in its illations at the end of the story, which
are not available on the Internet. Hence, it is worth stressing an excerpt of
the answer sent by Instituto Lula:

“In the case of professional activities,
talks organized by national and foreign companies, the former president is paid,
just like other former presidents who give talks. The former president has
already given talks to national and foreign companies from a wide array of
industries – technology, financial, auto parts, consumption, communications – and
from, among many others, such countries as the United States, Mexico, Sweden,
South Korea, Argentina, Spain and Italy. As is customary, organizing parties are
responsible for travel and accommodation costs. The former president gives speeches
and does not render consulting or any other kind of services.”

Journalists Thiago Bronzatto and Felipe Coutinho, who sign the text, call
Lula a “lobbyist-in-chief”.  The expression, besides being
defamatory, does not reflect the truth, and is revealing of the prejudice and
ignorance of the Época journalists in relation to the role of a former
president in advancing the interests of his or her country.

What Lula did, in the Presidency and out of it, was to promote Brazil
and its companies. No other president in the history of this country has led so
many delegations of businesspeople abroad in an effort to internationalize our
companies and increase our exports.

Third lie – Lula’s travels

The “report” by Época has no factual underpinning. The
magazine states that, over the last four years, Lula has constantly traveled to
“take care of his businesses”. And it continues with, “The destinations
were basically the same – from Cuba to Ghana, passing by Angola and the
Dominican Republic.” 

Let us make this very clear: the former president has no businesses
abroad. And, in saying that “most of Lula’s wanderings were paid for by
construction company Odebrecht”, the magazine is lying once again. It is not
true that most of the former president’s trips were paid for by Odebrecht. We
repeat an excerpt from the note sent to the magazine: “The former president has
given speeches to national and foreign
companies from a wide array of industries – technology, financial, auto parts,
consumption, communications – and from, among many others, such countries as the United States,
Mexico, Sweden, South Korea, Argentina, Spain, and Italy. As is customary, organizing parties are
responsible for travel and accommodation costs.”

Even without any obligation of doing so, the former president’s trips
are documented on the Instituto Lula website and his trips abroad were informed
to the press.

Once again, differently from what the magazine reports, after he left
the Presidency, Lula traveled to many countries, the most visited of which was
the United States of America (6 trips), where, among other activities, he was awarded the World Food Prize, in October 2011, for his efforts to fight hunger and also awarded
by the International Crisis Group, in April 2013,
for having propelled Brazil into a new economic and political
era.

In the USA he met twice with former President Bill Clinton – who also
has his own institute and also gives talks. 

Two countries are tied in second as most visited by Lula after his
presidency: Mexico and Spain (five visits each country). In Mexico, besides
delivering talks to local companies, Lula was awarded the Amalia Solórzano prize, in October
2011, and launched together with President Peña Nieto, upon invitation
of the Mexican government, a program against hunger inspired in the Brazilian
experience. 

In Spain, Lula was awarded the City of Cadiz prize,  the Catalonia International Prize, and a degree of Doctor Honoris Causa by the University of
Salamanca.

Those readers who may occasionally trust Época for their
only source of information not only were not informed of those awards, but were
also misinformed about the activities of the former president abroad.

Concerning the countries mentioned by the magazine, Lula has, since he
left the presidential office, been three times to Cuba, twice to Angola, and
only once to Ghana and the Dominican Republic, the most mentioned countries in
the article.

The magazine states that Lula’s activities as former president are
morally “questionable”. In the first place, as demonstrated above, the magazine
is misinformed or misinforming about such activities (probably both). For example,
does the magazine believe it morally questionable to organize, in Ethiopia, a Forum for the Eradication of Hunger in Africa, in
partnership with the FAO and the African Union? This
event was not reported by Época. Nor was it reported by Veja. Yet, it was reported by British newspaper The Guardian (link in English). 

Or in Angola, a country mentioned by Época,
does the magazine find it morally questionable to hold a big conference for more than one thousand
representatives from the government,
Congress, political parties and NGOs, in addition to Angolan scholars and journalists, gathered to listen about Angola’s and Brazil’s
public policies to alleviate poverty  and
foster economic development?

Or in Ghana to take part in an event organized by
the UN, crowded and covered by the local media, once again on the fight against
hunger? 

Paraphrasing the magazine, morally, the journalism done by Época,
which lies to its readers from its very cover, is questionable. But is there,
in light of the Brazilian laws, any possibility that these lies may be cause of
action for a lawsuit?

Fourth lie – About the visit by Luiz Dulci to
the Dominican Republic

Época builds
crazy theories not only about the former president’s trips, but also questions
and makes inferences about the visit of former minister and [current] director
of Instituto Lula, Luiz Dulci, to the Dominican Republic in November 2014. The
magazine was informed, and published, that the former minister traveled to that
country to give a conference, but not that it was about Brazilian social
policies. He gave interviews to the local press and was invited by President
Medina to talk about the Brazilian social policies, of which the Dominican
President is an admirer. The magazine only reported as its “version” that Dulci
had been invited by that country’s Senate. All the invitation and travel
documents are available to anyone willing to consult them – something the
magazine did not do before it was surprised by the interest abroad in the
achievements of the Lula administration.

Fifth lie – The criminalizing of Brazil’s
diplomatic activity in Ghana

Época provides
as evidence “consistent with a pattern”, a diplomatic communiqué released by
the Brazilian embassy in that country, sent on 30 March 2012, one year before Lula
visited Ghana. Lula was in Ghana only one year after such communiqué, in March
2013. It is worth reminding Época‘s
“investigative” journalists that, in March 2012, Lula was recovering from a throat
cancer treatment that had come to an end the previous month. 

As to the telegram by Irene Gala, ambassador of Brazil to Ghana, the
reply by the Itamaraty placed at the end of the text written by Época, cunningly
far from the illation against the diplomat, is crystal clear about there not
being any irregularity in it, “The Itamaraty has, among its duties, to act
abroad in favor of Brazilian companies. Accordingly, taking measures to
accomplish an investment does not constitute an irregularity.”

It is regrettable that the level of partiality of certain publications
has come to the point of trying to defame career civil servants for simply
doing what is part of their professional duties. It would be like criticizing a
Brazilian embassy for giving support to a journalist working for Época,
a private company, while said journalist was visiting a given country.

Sixth lie – Criminalizing the funding of Brazil’s
services exports

The magazine criminalizes and takes a political/partisan approach with
regard to the issue of the funding by [development bank] BNDES of Brazilian services
exporting companies. It is important to notice that this funding began before
2003, that is, before former President Lula’s administration. 

On this theme, the BNDES clarified its position in a communiqué, as also did Odebrecht . The
issue was analyzed in articles by Marcelo Zero and Luís Nassif, who
underscored that Época Negócios, 
a sister publication of Época, extolled the
internationalization of Brazilian companies in October 2014.

Seventh and biggest lie – Época’s “journalistic method”

Top scholarships in the United States paid by
conservative institutes are worthless if
journalism is done hastily and unwillingly, with lies and partiality. 

This is not the first time that Instituto Lula, or other people and organizations,
has contact with the “Época” method of journalism (which is not exclusive to
this magazine). Broadly, the method consists of creating narratives associating
unrelated and alleged facts, or parts of facts, that are pasted by the
journalists, and building theories without checking with the sources if reality
differs from their fantasy.

A few hours before the magazine closed, when, by journalistic production
deadlines, the story has most likely already been assigned its place in the
magazine, the cover has been chosen, and the infographics are ready, the
reporter gets in touch, by email, with the people mentioned in the article, in
general, without actually saying what the story was about (Época did not ask about or mention the initiative by the Public
Ministry). There is no real interest in ascertaining if the, overall, very serious
accusations are consistent and justify all the space given to the text’s
subject or focus.

Even if the journalist’s thesis could not be proven, the article will
not be thoroughly reexamined and will get published.  At “best”, the
answers given by the people and organizations involved will be placed at the
end of the story, yet this part will not be available online (and most often is
not carefully examined by journalists with other news companies providing the “repercussion”
of the fact). It is done like that because, first, the magazine would have no
other story with which to replace it and, second, because this could affect the
political impact, as well as the repercussion, on other print media and on social
media. 

That was exactly what Época did.
It got in touch with Instituto Lula, from Brasília, three hours before the
magazine closed. There were two options: speak on the phone or by email. The president
of Instituto Lula, Paulo Okamotto, in order to make it possible to record the
questions by and answers to the magazine, opted for answering by email, regretting that there was no possibility of
clarifying the magazine’s doubts personally .

It is worth noting that Época either did not listen to or failed to
record the other side of all those mentioned in the story. It quotes and
publishes photos of two foreign heads of state, John Dramani Mahama, from Ghana,
and Danilo Medina, from the Dominican Republic, both democratically elected and
representatives of their respective countries. And yet it failed to listen to
them, or to their embassies in Brazil. 

This is so much more absurd because, in theory, magazine Época should comply with the “Editorial Principles of the Globo Group” , of which it is part, and which were announced to millions of
Brazilians on its [Globo’s] nationwide news program Jornal Nacional.  

As the magazine seems not to respect journalism, diplomats, Dominican or
Ghanaian heads of state, or Brazilian former ministers and former heads of
state, it is wise to take heed of the recommendation by an American, Joseph
Pulitzer, regarding the social damages of poor journalistic practice. “A cynical, mercenary, demagogic press will
produce in time a people as base as itself.”