The text of Televisa's formal response to The Guardian, released today, is below. Grammatical errors or stylistic oddities are those of the writer. One might read the letter as an implied threat of legal action. But interestingly, it doesn't formally demand a retraction, which in many countries is an absolute prerequisite to a libel suit.
Letter of protest from Grupo Televisa to The Guardian, June 8, 2012:
"It's worrying that such a prestigious newspaper as The Guardian publishes an article like the one you published on your website on Thursday and in your print edition on Friday (Computer files link TV dirty tricks to favourite for Mexico presidency, 7 June), written by Jo Tuckman, without verification.
"To give you some context, your reporter in Mexico City contacted us on 4 June, requesting an interview with a Televisa executive regarding some documents she alleged to have that, in her own words, would reveal that former governor Enrique Peña Nieto had paid Televisa for coverage in both news and entertainment TV shows. She also mentioned that these documents would show proof that companies commercially related with Televisa sell airtime to politicians in different shows.
"We agreed to have the meeting in order to have access to such documents and provide a serious opinion. Ms. Tuckman said she would ask for authorization from her editors in London to disclose the documents to us. She then informed us that she wasn't authorized to do so. We declined to comment on the subject.
"Additionally, we must point out the following: (1) In the article, the reporter mentions that "it has not been possible to confirm the authenticity of the documents". (2) The disclosure of such documents was denied to Televisa, and thus we were unable to give a public opinion regarding something unknown to us. (3) The lack of journalistic rigour with which the article was written is clear when we consider the reporter used the word "apparently" eight times, but this word doesn't appear in the title. Everything is "appearances". (4) One of the alleged contracting parties (Estado de Mexico's state government) also denied any knowledge of the documents. (5) The article says that many of the files were saved under the name of Yessica de Lamadrid, but Ms Lamadrid told the reporter that she believed the documents were forgeries. (6) The reporter scantily mentions "a client who paid a lot of money", without further information regarding who this "client" was or how much "money" was paid. (7) Mere documents, without any signature or logo, and with electronic properties that can be created or modified using any household computer, are not considered as proof in any country. (8) One of the documents that The Guardian has was published in 2005.
"Based on the above, we emphatically object that you still published the article. On top of this, your article tries to turn into breaking news electronic documents that have been rolling around for almost seven years without any validation.
Regina Moctezuma
Corporate communications officer, Grupo Televisa"
U.K.'s Guardian reveals Televisa-EPN deal
Yo Soy 132 demonstrators in Mérida, May 23: "TV Azteca, Televisa - you lie"
De hecho, si el acuerdo de apoyo a EPN incluye tambien a SKY Mexico (donde Televisa tiene participacion) el problema podria alcanzar a News Corporation, puesto que esto seria una violacion a la Ley Anti-Corrupcion FCPA, lo que pondria a la compania en una situacion similar a la de Wal-Mart:
ReplyDelete"The anti-bribery provisions of the FCPA prohibit:
Issuers, domestic concerns, and any person from making use of interstate commerce corruptly, in furtherance of an offer or payment of anything of value to a foreign official, foreign POLITICAL PARTY, or CANDIDATE for POLITICAL office, for the purpose of influencing any act of that foreign official in violation of the duty of that official, or to secure any improper advantage in order to obtain or retain business."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Corrupt_Practices_Act
"La FCPA prohíbe a las compañías americanas o a cualquiera de sus subsidiarias, y sus empleados, el propiciar directa o indirectamente el soborno a funcionarios públicos en el extranjero con el fin de beneficiarse de esta acción. El incumplimiento puede ocasionar sanciones que van desde multas económicas de 500 mil dólares hasta intervención judicial."
http://www.24-horas.mx/wal-mart-fcpa-y-calderon/