Foreign Policy: poor journalism, solidarity with a dictatorial regime - or both?

FOREIGN POLICY, a new member? 

The case of the article written in Foreign Policy about Leopoldo Lopez, see: http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/07/27/the-making-of-leopoldo-lopez-democratic-venezuela-opposition/ has grown more and more complicated and the details that emerge are not precisely favorable to the magazine. The article was:

1.      Written by a leftist activist called Roberto Lovato

2.       Financed by the Nation Institute, a center of fellow travelers, without Lovato meeting the requirements the organization usually stipulates before financing a report. Did they have the assurance that FP would publish this piece? It would be good to hear what the Nation Institute has to say in this respect, other than wildly celebrating Lovato’s macabre piece in The Nation, see:  "Leopoldo Lopez Is Not Venezuela’s Savior”, by “ chavista” Greg Grandin, in July 29, 2015, part of the Venezuelan regime’s promoted campaign against Lopez.

3.      Written while the author was engaged in paid work by TELESUR, the Venezuelan television station owned by, and used as, a propaganda vehicle for the abusive and corrupt regime of deceased Hugo Chavez, now replaced by his former protégée Nicolas Maduro. See:

http://www.latinorebels.com/2014/08/23/hate-and-hope-in-escondido-this-weeks-americans-with-roberto-lovato-on-telesur-english/

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLNAlnQ4hvLtT09KMg0v1HVhYUD_jkCK7e

http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/US-Tried-to-Stop-Printing-of-Polemical-Leopoldo-Lopez-Article-20150903-0017.html

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/telesur-english-lands-in-the-usa-268483932.html

4.      Published as a PROFILE in Foreign Policy (later on, the title PROFILE was eliminated, as controversy surrounding the piece grew). A PROFILE is given a special niche in the magazine and is designed to produce an impact – positive or negative – about a person. A professional PROFILE requires both sound research and an interview with the person being profiled. This piece by Lovato failed to meet these two requirements.

5.      Published by Foreign Policy without a proper checking of Lovato’s conflict of interest. One of the first questions that are cleared by a magazine is that of a possible conflict of interest, especially in the case of an article clearly biased in favor or against the person profiled.  The author of the piece was being paid by Leopoldo Lopez’s jailers and this association existed during all or most of the months the author took to write the hatchet job. And FP did not ask him! Or did not care to find out.

6.       Clearly part of a wider network of attacks against Leopoldo Lopez, as it can  be seen by the concerted coverage of this piece in vehicles such as www.aporrea.org, www.venezuelanalysis.com, The Nation, Telesur, www.axisoflogic.com and many other outlets for the narco- regime. In this manner, Foreign Policy becomes, willy nilly, part of this vast network of aggressors against freedom and democracy.

The prestige of Foreign Policy has suffered a severe blow due to this unfortunate publication of Lovato’s piece and the manner in which the propaganda network of the regime has utilized its good name  to claim the publication as one of their own. In Spanish there is saying: “The passenger can be evaluated by his suitcase”. Due to this affair Foreign Policy seems to have mutated from being a  Louis Vuitton suitcase  to a bag bought at a Military Surplus Store.