Letter to Ms. Maria Ressa about irresponsible failed fact checking with Britney Spears

 

Ms. Maria Ressa

2021 Nobel Peace Prize winner

Dear Maria Ressa:

I have read the Sarajevo statement on freedom of expression and fact-checking by the fact checkers grouped in the International Fact-Checking Network. I have also read your conversation with AFP Global News Director Phil Chetwynd during GlobalFact 11 held in that city.

"FULL TEXT: Nobel Peace Prize winner Maria Ressa empowers fact-

checkers, warns of inflection point for democracy at GlobalFact 11"

https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2024/full-text-nobel-peace-prize-winner-maria-ressa-empowers-fact-checkers-warns-of-inflection-point-for-democracy-at-globalfact-11/

"The world’s fact-checkers affirm fact-checking as essential to free speech because it requires openness, transparency and preservation of information"

https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2024/worlds-fact-checkers-issue-sarajevo-statement-supporting-fact-checking-as-free-speech-not-censorship-at-globalfact-11-conference/

I praise your good intentions and those of, surely, at least the majority of the fact checkers who met there, stating that they are fighting a battle “for the facts”, but I am still alarmed by the lack of self-criticism that both you and them show.

In recent times I have been spreading the knowledge about the embarrassing episode that the American newspaper USA Today, a member of the IFCN and one of the fact checking organizations hired by Facebook (Meta), carried out a disastrous fact check in 2020 in which it gave the statement that the conservatorship of pop star Britney Spears did not abuse her, and think otherwise deserved the rating of “false” calling the #FreeBritney movement to free her a conspiracy theory. Of course the publicly known facts ended up denying this conclusion.

"Fact check: Britney Spears' 12-year-long conservatorship is not taking advantage of her"

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/07/22/fact-check-britney-spears-conservatorship-isnt-manipulating-her/5430229002/

Before continuing, I clarify that I am not a Britney Spears fan. I am a Mexican independent investigative journalist who by chance I met and began to investigate her case. Maybe you can think, Maria, why we must care about the case of Britney Spears, a famous, rich and white pop star. I let you know, in case you never knew, that after the nervous breakdown she had at the beginning of 2008 she spent 13 years under a legal figure called conservatorship, which implied an absolute loss of the right to decide about her own life and body.

This implied that despite being the one who generated million-dollar income with her presentations and other activities, she could not decide on the money she earned, that was for her conservators to decide. Perhaps you have found out that she even reported that she had been put on an IUD against her will, preventing her from becoming pregnant. That was, her freedom of reproductive choice was violated.

As you can see, Maria, this was a very serious mistake by a fact checking organization that had very serious implications for the freedom and well-being of a woman, implying to prolong the abuse against her, beyond her being pop star Britney Spears. Many of us are convinced that such a serious error deserves a public apology and the elimination of the “false” rating from the failed fact check.

What the fact check carried out by USA Today did was legitimize the prolongation of an abusive situation. Furthermore, to make matters worse, that fact check, as I already pointed out, continues to this day to maintain the “false” rating that was then given to the #FreeBritney “conspiracy theory”, which implies that USA Today does not acknowledge having made any mistake. The most they did, after I wrote to FactChecking editor Eric Litke pointing out some of their mistakes, was, as you can see, put up an update stating that a judge had decided to end the conservatorship, and that Britney Spears herself had pointed out the same as “abusive”.

“Email to USA Today on the failed "fact check" on Britney Spears conservatorship and #FreeBritney movement”

https://teradatomoo.blogspot.com/2022/04/email-to-usa-today-on-failed-fact-check.html

Surely Mr. Chetwynd will not like me to say it, but what there was in this case was very far from being just a “surreal” accusation of censorship. Based on the “false” rating given by USA Today to #FreeBritney on Facebook, any information about it was treated on the platform as “misinformation.” Which implied, in addition to the obstacles to its spreading, that in some cases the accounts of those who insisted on sharing the “misinformation” were taken down.

What I'm showing to you, Maria, and to your fact checkers friends, is the enormous damage a fact check can do when the fact checkers get it wrong. Even worse because, as I had to say it in Spanish publicly to Laura Zommer and Clara Jiménez Cruz, both quite well known in the fact checking community, it turns out, in my experience, that fact checkers have a very hard time recognizing honestly and immediately when they have mistaken.

“Seminario web 68: Colaboración para verificar datos: la experiencia de Factchequeado”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuRCDcduEXY

"Una respuesta a Laura Zommer (Chequeado) y Clara Jiménez Cruz (Maldita.es)"

https://teradatomoo.blogspot.com/2022/05/una-respuesta-laura-zommer-chequeado-y.html

I'm writing an open letter to Mr. Neil Brown, President of Poynter, because, as you know, the IFCN is part of Poynter. In that letter, which I pitched to the Columbia Journalism Review and which they politely decided to reject, I will reiterate my points about the infamous fact check. And I will do my own fact check (who fact checks the fact checkers?) to show that with the information available at the time USA TODAY´s fact check was carried out, if done conscientiously and responsibly, would have indicated the dark side of the conservatorship.

I respectfully ask you, Maria, that you and the fact checkers not be so obsessed with the idea that any criticism of what you do is an attack. Because then you end up not being an army in the fight against misinformation, crusaders for the truth, as you want to see yourselves, but rather seem more like a group of unaccountable religious fanatics seeking to impose your “truth” mounted on the shoulders of Facebook, threatening the free circulation of ideas and the free examination of facts, as I have shown you very briefly with the case of the failed fact check carried out by USA Today regarding the conservatorship of Britney Spears. *

And to make matters worse, USA Today refuses to recognize both the enormous mistake made and the extensive damage done. Very significantly USA Today does not appear as a signatory to the Sarajevo statement despite currently being a member of IFCN.

And if fact checkers can be wrong about Britney Spears, they can be wrong about other people also. And getting the facts wrong. And to make matters worse, if they refuse to recognize a mistake when they make it, that does a disservice to the truth and the public information ecosystem.

There are other cases that can be discussed, but this one stands out because Britney Spears is not a political figure and the case cannot be seen in a partisan or ideological way. The basic human rights of people are above political creeds.

I will post this message to you on my blog.

Sincerely,

Tomoo Terada

*PS. 

Reviewing what was written and sent to Mrs. Ressa, I noticed that the word "mounted" was missing to give the complete and correct idea, which is not that the fact checkers grouped in the IFCN who commit errors in their fact checks put the responsibility on the shoulders of Facebook, although I have known of cases in which both entities throw the ball each other.

I was referring rather to the fact that a fact check is not a simple opinion to be taken into account, but because of the role that Facebook has given to the fact checkers it has hired, it has turned them into gatekeepers of such important platform for distribution of news and ideas.

It's the fact that Facebook enforces the fact checks that the third-party fact-checkers it has hired as confirmed truth, they "mounted on Facebook shoulders" that makes it relevant that these are really accountable when commit mistakes.

TOMOO TERADA AS INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST

As a writer, and in my facet as an independent investigative journalist, not affiliated with or supported by an established outlet, and whose issues I have chosen to investigate have affected powerful interests, including those of the Mexican government and the worldwide media industry like CNN, I have often been ban from publishing in what is considered the mainstream media. Of course, not an official, publically recognized ban.

I think the important thing about this situation is that NONE of my very serious points of my investigations published in these mainstream media when I have been able to do it, have NEVER been denied by those who have been exposed. The ban it has been pure retribution to prevent me from advancing professionally.

In 2009, I exposed Rosa Beltrán, a very overrated writer that not by coincidence has made an influential bureaucratic career in UNAM (main university of Mexico) who fabricated a story of Korean nationals stealing pets from Mexican people to eat them. She's one of the most powerful women between the Mexican literati.

https://web.archive.org/web/20090805155022/http://impreso.milenio.com/node/8617573

In 2007, it was exposed that the Mexican government had illegally introduced personnel from the Cisen, the political police, to supposedly support the management of the documentary heritage that had been transferred to the National Archives, and that it would be the documentary evidence base for the investigation of serious violations of human rights, such as the Tlatelolco massacre. Being that there was a serious conflict of interest that several of the accused had historically been bosses of or members of that political police. Ten years later there was a continuation. That staff would leave until 2019, without explaining how the integrity of those collections of evidence could be ensured.

In both publications, the investigation appear signed by others, but they are based on the investigation that I had carried out and on documents that I obtained. Both reporters couldn't deny it. For this reason, although they are not signed by me, I always put them as an example of the investigative journalism work I do.

https://contralinea.com.mx/galeria-1-del-agn-ilegalidad-y-propaganda/

In 2018, I proved that a #MeToo story against actor Morgan Freeman was just a fabrication by a CNN reporter. Instead of seeking to deny me directly and energetically, a spokeswoman for that media company attacked me hiding behind anonymity. When I found out her identity, her attack was deleted online.

https://web.archive.org/web/20181218034855/http://larepublica.pe/espectaculos/1370847-morgan-freeman-inocente-periodista-cnn-fabrico-pruebas-denuncia-acoso-sexual-actor-hollywood-harvey-weinstein-me-too-mexico-usa

And if the fraud had been committed in the New York Times itself, I would still have pointed it out.

As a characteristic that I allow myself to point out in my activity as an investigative journalist is that many times investigating one topic leads me to another, in an organic development. An investigation into the alleged espionage activity of the writer Elena Garro, research quoted in the books Elena Garro and Mexico's Modern Dreams (2012), by Rebecca E. Biron, and Debo olvidar que existí. Retrato inédito de Elena Garro (2017), by Rafael Cabrera, (of Casa Blanca de Peña Nieto fame) led me to discover the illegal entry of Cisen to Mexico´s National Archives.

Another characteristic of me is that I rebel against the secondary condition to which most Latin American writers and journalists seem to conform, with respect to American journalism and literature. I wrote the column Giving birth to journalistic fraud: Morgan Freeman and CNN, widely disseminated in the Spanish-language sphere, mentioned or alluded to in around 70 media, showing that CNN committed journalistic fraud. Among others, El País, El Mundo, La Vanguardia, Marca, Público, Telecinco, from Spain. El Comercio, La República, Buenos días Perú, from Peru. El Nacional, El Pitazo, from Venezuela. Cultura colectiva, La Saga, Eje Central, from Mexico. ETC.

I am currently conducting an investigation alongside (and sometimes in spite of and against) members of the #FreeBritney movement, which formally succeeded in freeing singer Britney Spears from an abusive conservatorship. It's my conviction that her case involves serious issues about corruption in American courts and Media, and fascinating questions about personal freedom, sanity, public images, disinformation campaigns and more. In the deep, this is not tabloid material no matter apparences.

I have had as recognition of my investigation having been blocked, not denied, by the Twitter account (55 million of followers) supposedly managed by Britney Spears herself, which was actually opened, like the Instagram account, by those who managed the conservatorship.

This was because I exposed that she never asked in the June 23, 2021 court hearing that the trial to be sealed. This was asked by infamous court appointed attorney Sam Ingham claiming to asking for it in her behalf. Not a reason for the real Britney Spears to block someone.

Letter to IWMF´s Nadine Hoffman about Taylor Lorenz and other false women journalists heroes

Nadine Hoffman

International Women’s Media Foundation Deputy Director

Dear Miss Hoffmann,

As you may know, I am one of the students taking the Knight Center “Mental health and journalism: How journalists can responsibly report on it and take care of themselves” course. I told instructor Mar Cabra that exemplifying the way you did with Taylor Lorenz to illustrate the issue of online harassment of female journalists was a bad idea, it was not a good example. I did not anticipate that she would share my point of view with you and that you would kindly respond by referring to the article “Gender-based online violence spikes after prominent media attacks” published by Brookings.

I am very grateful to Mar for taking my question so seriously in order to share my question with you, but since I do not agree with your answer, I am writing directly to you, so as not to distract her from her main activity in the course, which is not that of being an intermediary between an interviewee and a student.

TAYLOR LORENZ

I'm aware of that article that you mention, but I'm sorry, in my point of view it's not directly related to the issue I raised, which is Taylor Lorenz's recurrent unethical conduct. I gave a very specific recent example of that behavior, with that reporter fabricating contacts with sources that she didn't really seek out until it came to light because those sources protested and made it public.

Neither in the article nor in the publications to which it links:

“Gender-Based Violence Online”, by the  Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency.

https://cdn.sida.se/app/uploads/2021/11/04102156/10204730_BRIEF_Gender-Based_Violence_Online_nov-2021_webb.pdf

“The Chilling: Global Trends in Online Violence Against Women Journalists”, the research discussion paper by the team led by Julie Posetti.

https://en.unesco.org/sites/default/files/the-chilling.pdf

is there any argument that justifies the behavior of Taylor Lorenz that I have indicated.

https://www.thewrap.com/washington-post-taylor-lorenz-column-youtubers/

https://www.mediaite.com/news/washington-posts-erik-wemple-questions-why-readers-should-trust-the-post-after-taylor-lorenz-controversy/

The article you recommend covers two different episodes with Taylor Lorenz involving Fox News host Tucker Carlson and Pulitzer winner Glenn Greenwald. The episode I mentioned involves the distorted portrait by her of the YouTubers covering the Johnny Depp-Amber Heard trial.

And the ethical transgression that implies lying by publishing having contacted someone when in reality that never happened.

I repeat, the article in no way justifies Lorenz's behavior in that episode, which is not the only antithetical one in which she has been involved. I suppose you, Miss Hoffman, do not personally justify these embarrassing episodes either.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wEACP11J34

What makes the implicit premise of the article you refer to even more problematic, to the effect that it is forbidden for “prominent male media figures” to call out someone like Taylor Lorenz because she would otherwise be harassed, is that she is a reporter who works for powerful platforms like the New York Times and now the Washington Post. She is not just any reporter. Therefore, it is intended to protect those who belong to an already privileged group that claims to be above criticism and even repudiation, justified or not.

I read at “The Chilling”:

Our participants also revealed an alarming trend involving male journalists from competing news organisations and fringe blogs, especially those from the edges of the political spectrum, ‘dogpiling’ specific women journalists. Eight percent (8%) of our survey respondents identified “staff of rival news organisations’’ among their regular abusers. This was a particularly noticeable pattern in the US and the UK, with multiple interviewees being subjected to gaslighting attacks from male journalists and commentators featuring pernicious sexism and misogyny.

This behaviour is identifiable as part of a pattern whereby certain influential male journalists trigger or amplify abuse by signalling (e.g., through sharing a tweet from the targeted journalist with critical annotations) to their followers to join the attack on a woman journalist.

 

Niche sites and partisan news media outlets then respond to these cues through blogs, columns or TV segments - both amplifying the abuse and delivering new participants to the ‘pile-on’ brigade. In some cases, the attack is then “laundered” or legitimised by mainstream media actors. This type of coordinated online assault on a woman journalist sometimes includes pressuring her employer to sack her. New York Times technology reporter Taylor Lorenz is a regular target of such campaigns across multiple platforms:

“My frustration and anger with all of this is I actually don’t even care about death threats anymore. I’ve had so many people tell me they’re going to come rape me and murder me.

I’m kind of immune to them by now. But what I really care about is the reputational harm...

.

Their ultimate goal is to make you seem difficult in some way... They wrote a whole story where it implies that I rape children. It’s insane. But smears like that hurt my credibility in the eyes of the public... And let’s also talk about how the right-wing media amplifies all of it... you would not believe how famous they’ve made me in that ecosystem.”

But neither Tucker Carlson nor Glenn Greenwald called their followers to attack Taylor Lorenz.

In fact, for instance, the interaction between Glenn Greenwald and Taylor Lorenz is being misrepresented. She was the one who targeted him, attacking him first, with a tweet saying that a "legitimate journalist" would never make a deal with Rumble like Greenwald did. He put the screenshot of it in his tweet. So, in effect, asking Greenwald not to respond to Lorenz is silencing him.

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1425915345995436040

VIRGINIA HEFFERNAN

But the most questionable case of the three that the article handles is that of Virginia Heffernan.

Strangely, the link to that case is broken.

https://video.foxnews.com/v/6230362987001#sp=show-clips

So I did some research and found out that it all started from a column Heffernan published in the Los Angeles Times, “What can you do about the Trumpites next door?”:

https://news.yahoo.com/column-trumpites-next-door-110012354.html

It's a divisive column that recounts how neighbors shovel snow off her house, and she has the moral dilemma of thanking them despite being supporters of Trump, whom she compares to Nazis.

The Daily Mail covered the reactions, including by Megyn Kelly:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9239017/Megyn-Kelly-criticizes-LA-Times-columnist-comparing-Trump-supporting-neighbors-Nazi-sympathizers.html

So, sorry, all the three episodes it seems like politically motivated and politically driven exchange of aggression. And I am not willing to be manipulated, by one side or the other.

CHLOE MELAS 

But let me explain briefly why I'm skeptical of people like Taylor Lorenz's. Why I don't buy that they are real victims.

In 2018, I published an investigation that proved that a CNN Entertainment reporter based in New York City, Chloe Melas, has been fabricated a #MeToo story on Hollywood star Morgan Freeman. I published that piece in Spanish at the Gabriel García Márquez Journalism Foundation website.

At the time, CNN claimed that Melas had received death threats. Supposedly from Morgan Freeman fans.

https://www.ajc.com/entertainment/cnn-reporter-who-accused-morgan-freeman-getting-death-threats/GQMnpl27gTZfsrhpJeSjZJ/

It wasn't until Spain's second national newspaper, El Mundo, picked it up and spread it to a mass audience that it gained traction. It hit strong, and around 70 outlets across the Spanish-language media cover it. And what CNN did? They refute me proving I was wrong? Ignored me because I never was in their radar?

No, they pressure El Mundo to delete viral tweets that spread their story about my investigation.

And then, already on the American continent, they pressured a Peruvian newspaper, La República, to publish an anonymous attack against me, with statements from an anonymous source "from CNN" saying that what I had published were falsehoods. Behind the anonymity the CNN spokesperson for Latin America, Mariana Pinango, was hiding.

And after the fraud against Morgan Freeman Melas dedicated herself to promoting a narrative that would justify the abusive conservatorship to which Britney Spears was subjected.

She was accused by many in the #FreeBritney movement of being in the payroll of Britney Spears' father.

Chloe Melas met with four activists from the movement to supposedly interview them for the documentary that CNN was preparing on the conservatorship. But in the end, under a ridiculous excuse, the material was not included and was buried, but the activists recorded it and shows the ignorance and unethical bad faith of Chloe Melas.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwDuARRYt48

And she starts by claiming she and her family are receiving death threats. Pure BS to distract and not be accountable.

I have challenged CNN to sue me if I "defamed" Chloe Melas. And I take every opportunity I get to put her on display and talk about how disgusting and corrupt she is, and I don't regret it. And I even wrote CNN's attorney Ted Boutros, member of  the IWMF’s Advisory Council, about it.

So, from my experience with Chloe Melas, I know firsthand that there are female reporters who pretend to be attacked and are nothing more than corrupt phonies playing the victim.

I respectfully suggest that someone like you, Miss Hoffman, be more critical or less partisan in supporting those like Taylor Lorenz and Chloe Melas just for being female reporters, rather than for being honest and righteous.

Regards,

Tomoo Terada

As I mention them I address

Megan Brown, Zeve Sanderson, from CSMaP

Maria Alejandra Silva Ortega, from IWMF.

Julie Posetti, from ICFJ.

PD:

After sending my email and reread it, I see need a brief addition.

I have seen many tweets related to Chloe Melas over the years and I have NEVER seen one with a death threat against her. Calling her dishonest, stupid, unreliable, a lot.

To my knowledge, she has never filed a complaint asking the police to investigate these alleged death threats. Very strange if she denounces that those threats include her children. So to me, that's just a tactic to ask for sympathy from the audience and manipulate others to make them feel guilty and deflect criticism.

About Taylor Lorenz. She once claimed to be harassed by a Drudge Report editor and when Matt Drudge himself chimed in to set the record straight, she said it was a "joke".

https://nypost.com/2022/05/04/taylor-lorenz-walks-back-allegation-against-drudge-editor/

A repeated victim of harassment, according to herself, who does not take seriously what harassment can do to a true victim, nor can a false complaint affect the life and career of someone who is falsely accused.

Una respuesta a Laura Zommer (Chequeado) y Clara Jiménez Cruz (Maldita.es)

Desirée Esquivel Almada 

Gerente de Comunidad en Español del Foro Pamela Howard del ICFJ sobre Cobertura de Crisis Mundiales 

Estimada Desirée: Acerca del Seminario web 68 del Foro, “Colaboración para verificar datos: la experiencia de Factchequeado”, con la participación de Laura Zommer y Clara Jiménez Cruz. 

Primero, Desirée, lamento parezca que en un foro de periodistas no se puede preguntar con libertad, porque la anfitriona quiere “proteger” de preguntas “incómodas” a los invitados, hechas con absoluto respeto. Porque esa fue la impresión que diste, de que las querías “proteger” a Laura y Clara de mis preguntas, y por eso las ibas a omitir, lo que en realidad iba en perjuicio de la imagen de ellas dos, justo como verificadoras que necesitan esa protección porque no tienen la capacidad de responder a quien les cuestiona o, peor, porque algo ocultan. Por eso tuvieron que ser ellas mismas quienes manifestaran querer responder. 

 
Mis preguntas las envié con mucha anticipación, para que fueran tomadas en cuenta y analizadas y respondidas con calma. Incluso Laura Zommer dejó claro que tú se las reenviaste con antelación, y ella quería responder la que le envié,porque le parecía útil acerca de cómo se generan las desinformaciones. En el chat tuve que precisar, a fin de que lo supieran los demás participantes, que las preguntas las había enviado desde el 20 de mayo, para que no se me pudiera acusar de preguntar a última hora habiendo poco tiempo, o de mala fe estar buscando sorprender a alguien. 

Paso a responder a Laura y Clara, porque sus respuestas fueron insatisfactorias y sólo abonan al escepticismo que he manifestado sobre las organizaciones verificadoras. 

 

A) Sobre la verificación de USA Today calificando como teoría de la conspiración al movimiento #FreeBritney le comento a Laura que el mismo no se trató, como ella lo conceptúa, de si “era correcta u incorrecta la medida dispuesta por un juez”. De lo que se trató fue de que en internet circulaba la idea de que Britney Spears estaba atrapada en una curatela abusiva. Entonces los verificadores de USA Today, más interesados en desmentir lo que ya previamente habían decidido era una “teoría de la conspiración” que en investigar la verdad, hicieron una investigación sesgada y llegaron a su conclusión. 

Y sí había elementos para poder juzgar la actuación de los jueces en el caso. De hecho en uno de sus aspectos se trató de corrupción judicial, un tema poco tratado por el periodismo iberoamericano. Por ejemplo, el hecho de que Britney Spears no podía contratar abogado de su elección, a pesar de que ese era un derecho que sobre papel lo tenía, pero que se volvía nugatorio en la realidad, pues estaba atrapada en un círculo vicioso en el que, como tenía la imagen de mujer “loca” quienes estaban a cargo de ella eran quienes decidían que “no estaba bien” para contratar a un abogado, pero sí lo estaba para realizar giras y demás actividades de las que ellos se enriquecían. 

Tan se trata de información contrastable, que esa es parte de mi argumentación, ahora que le he vuelto a escribir a USA Today solicitando una retractación completa y una disculpa pública. Pero podemos tomarnos el café con Laura para que le explique con más amplitud del caso, y el porqué lo considero un error tan grave como para cuestionar todo el sistema que han construido las verificadoras, la IFCN y Facebook.

Chequeado ha chequeado varias teorías de la conspiración:

https://chequeado.com/el-explicador/como-funciona-la-mente-de-un-negacionista-de-la-ciencia/ 

https://chequeado.com/el-explicador/the-great-reset-que-es-esta-iniciativa-del-foro-de-davos-y-que-dice-la-teoria-conspirativa-que-se-fabrico-a-su-alrededor/ 

B) En el caso de Maldita. es y el diario ABC lamento tener que decirlo pero Clara Jiménez no se ajusta a la verdad. Y muestra que las verificadoras piensan que pueden arrogarse abusivamente hasta un papel que no les corresponde. De paso confirma mi señalamiento de la dificultad que tienen para reconocer honestamente y de inmediato cuando se han equivocado. 

La noticia informada por ABC fue que: 

“ Todo inmigrante que se afinque en Aragón tendrá derecho a cobrar un mínimo de 522 euros al mes. Basta con que se empadrone en algún municipio aragonés o que haya presentado una solicitud de asilo y refugio. Para empadronarse no se exige que el inmigrante tenga regularizada su situación en España -basta con presentar el pasaporte-...”

https://web.archive.org/web/20210525161136/https://www.abc.es/espana/aragon/abci-aragon-aprueba-ley-paga-minima-522-euros-para-inmigrantes-empadronen-region-202105251153_noticia.html 

Hubo quienes, como Pascual Serrano, cuestionaron el titular de ABC por considerarlo prejuiciado y manipulador al centrarse en la ayuda a los inmigrantes irregulares, por parte de un gobierno del PSOE, cuando era una ayuda a los más necesitados, fueran inmigrantes o no. 

https://twitter.com/pascual_serrano/status/1397249700202430468 

Pero la verificación de Maldita no era acerca de si la redacción del reportero de ABC era prejuiciada contra los inmigrantes o si la línea editorial de ese diario era antiinmigrante y discriminatoria. La verificación se trató de si era cierta o no esa ayuda monetaria, y las condiciones que se planteaban para obtenerla. Maldita publicó que la información de ABC era falsa, la calificó de bulo.

https://web.archive.org/web/20210525195843/https://maldita.es/malditobulo/20210525/inmigrante-ilegal-522-aragon-empadronarse/ 

Pero la información de ABC era verdadera porque se basaba en la redacción definitiva de la ley que establecía esas ayudas. Mientras que Maldita se basó en un borrador.

https://maldita.es/malditobulo/20210525/inmigrante-ilegal-522-aragon-empadronarse/ 

Contra lo que dice Clara, para justificar que sólo se haya corregido el titular, por supuesto que se movió el asunto en redes, y fuera de ellas, con una reacción de claro sentido político-partidista: 

Podemos Aragón 

https://archive.ph/atBCF 

Pero donde Clara, como decimos en México, se “salta la barda” y debo decirlo con todas sus letras que espero se haya confundido porque sino entonces le mintió a los asistentes del Foro, es cuando aseguró que “el fondo de la verificación era correcto”. Habla de que así lo confirmaban “los expertos consultados”. Pero ni en el chequeo original ni en la corrección aparecían mencionados expertos algunos que hubieran sido consultados. También menciona que era confirmado “según la interpretación que se hacía de ese párrafo de la ley”, pero no precisa a la interpretación de quién se refiere. 

 Además afirma: 

 

“Era tan correcto que cuando Abc salió a acusar a Maldita y nosotros ya habíamos hecho la corrección, la Asociación de Periodistas Aragoneses salió a decir:” No, el ABC sigue contando algo que es falso y Maldita ha corregido y esta bien lo que dice.” 

No, de hecho la Asociación de Periodistas Aragoneses no afirmó lo que dice Clara. 

https://periodistasdearagon.org/2021/05/26/periodistas-de-aragon-llama-a-la-responsabilidad-en-las-informaciones-sobre-inmigrantes-y-pide-dejar-de-lado-las-incitaciones-al-odio/ 

Lo que hizo fue una condena del enfoque del reportero Roberto Pérez Blasco, de ABC, la cual entendió como promotora de la discriminación, pero en ningún momento señala falsedad en lo publicado por Pérez Blasco. De hecho en ningún momento menciona a Maldita por lo que jamás afirmó que esta estuviera en lo correcto. 

Y por eso antes mencioné que las verificadoras piensan que pueden arrogarse abusivamente hasta un papel que no les corresponde. Una verificadora, dentro de lo humanamente posible, averigua si algo es cierto u falso. Pero no puede pretender evaluar conductas ni ideas. Si ABC y su reportero estában fomentando el racismo y la xenofobia no le corresponde a Maldita juzgarlo. 

Eso le correspondía a un colegio profesional como el de los periodistas de Aragón. Pero eso no fue un espaldarazo a Maldita porque la verdad de la información de ABC no fue cuestionada. 

Dejé al último al Gobierno de Aragón, en ese momento del PSOE, para señalar que la fallida verificación de Maldita sólo abonaba a la idea de que las verificadoras pretenden ser imparciales pero en realidad son parte de la lucha político-partidista, en este caso en España. 

Porque el diario ABC es conocida su tendencia en pro de los partidos Ciudadanos y Partido Popular, opuestos al PSOE. La televisora La Sexta, de donde procede Clara, es identificada con el PSOE. 

Así que al chequeo de Maldita a ABC se le podía dar la lectura de que era un ataque a la credibilidad de un medio del bando contrario, aprovechando un aparente error suyo. Por eso el gobierno de Aragón intervinó. Lo menciona ABC: 

“El Gobierno de Aragón atacó ayer a ABC escondiendo el hecho de que su argumentación se basaba en el borrador de la norma, no en el texto definitivo, y calificando de falsa la información en la que este periódico reproducía el texto que ha entrado en vigor y que no pone límite expreso alguno sobre los eventuales destinatarios de la ayuda.” 

https://www.abc.es/sociedad/abci-malditaes-publica-bulo-sobre-informacion-cierta-abc-202105261350_noticia.html 

Puedo no simpatizar con ABC, pero aquí se trata de que una verificadora acusa a un medio de esparcir un bulo, cuando se trata de información verdadera. Y hasta pretende ya no el averiguar si algo es cierto u falso sino el descalificar ideologías y líneas editoriales desde su posición de verificación. Me parece peligrosísismo para la libertad de expresión, de prensa. 

C) Sobre Laura y su marido. Como consta, no he acusado a Laura Zommer de haber cometido algo indebido. Lo que he hecho es recoger las acusaciones de Viviana Canosa en contra de ella. 

Creo que tú, Desirée Esquivel, como mujer casada entenderas que si a tu marido lo acusan y hasta llega a proceso por un presunto peculado de millones, inevitablemente eso repercutirá en ti, al ser alguien con quien compartes hogar y proyecto de vida. La sospecha, justa u injustamente caería sobre ti también, de que algo de ese dinero te habría “salpicado”. Y le correspondería a tu marido deslindarte de sus actos. 

Canosa lanzó además en redes la acusación de que Laura Zommer y su marido tenían una mansión en Miami, y ya Laura ha aclarado que se trata de alguien que tiene el mismo apellido de su marido, pero con el que no hay relación alguna. Eso se lo podría reclamar Laura a Canosa, pero el proceso por peculado es un hecho. Yo no me he “comido” ninguna desinformación. 

Laura me escribió en el chat: “Sobre el procesamiento de mi esposo te sugiero que le preguntes a él y al juez millonario que lo procesó”. 

Perdón, pero eso es responder nada. Por eso le contrarespondí que su marido debía aclaralo ante medios. Si acaso se trata de que le pusieron una trampa o se trata de persecución política, eso es lo que deberían de aclarar. 

La cuestión de fondo, lo que pregunté, es si un hecho como este repercute en la credibilidad e imagen pública de una verificadora. Yo pensaría que sí, y por eso puse el ejemplo de David Mikkelson, los plagios y Snopes. 

Aclaro que no soy esceptico de la práctica del fact checking, cuyo origen es mucho anterior a Chequeado, Maldita, la IFCN y Facebook. De lo que soy esceptico es del sistema actual que han construido, en el que esa nada nueva práctica se ha vuelto un instrumento para imponer “la verdad” basado en el poder de una entidad tan opaca como Facebook. Tan poderosa que impone como “verdad” hasta los errores y creencias de los fact checkers. 

 

Y tan aplico mi escepticismo a todo el periodismo que desnudé la corrupción de CNN, mucho antes de sus escándalos con Chris Cuomo.

https://web.archive.org/web/20190324062043/https://fundaciongabo.org/es/etica-periodistica/blogs/dando-luz-un-fraude-periodistico-morgan-freeman-y-cnn 

Como mis preguntas fueron hechas para responderse públicamente, y así lo hicieron Laura Zommer y Clara Jiménez Cruz, voy a hacer pública esta, mi correspondiente respuesta. 

Atentamente. 

Tomoo Terada

ACTUALIZACIÓN 6 de julio de 2024

Para transparencia y dejar públicamente claro y de forma exacta lo que pregunté tanto a Laura Zommer como a Clara Jiménez Cruz, transcribo, tal cual, las preguntas que le envié a Desirée Esquivel.

A fin de que no haya malentendidos si es que algunos miembros de la comunidad de factcheckers quieran creer o quieran presentarme como un "enemigo" del factchecking, una práctica que respeto profundamente, la cual también deberían respetar y no abusar de ella quienes perpetran supuestas verificaciones, dañando a otros, como fue el caso de USA Today. 

Todo por atreverme a criticar y señalar que las verificaciones mal hechas son tan dañinas como lo es la desinformación. 

1. Como bien sabe Desirée Esquivel, soy muy escéptico de las organizaciones verificadoras por mi experiencia con el "fact check" que realizó el diario USA Today, una de las verificadoras contratadas por Facebook y miembro de la IFCN, calificando como teoría de la conspiración al movimiento #FreeBritney y falso que la curatela impuesta a ella era abusiva. Una vez destapada la realidad  ese "fact check"  sigue manteniendo el rating de falso, y sólo después de que les escribí reconoció que la propia Britney Spears reconoció como abusiva la curatela, lo que es no reconocer el error cometido. He buscado se corrija esto, y mayormente he encontrado silencio. ¿Por qué es tan difícil para las verificadoras reconocer con honestidad y de inmediato cuando se han equivocado?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/07/22/fact-check-britney-spears-conservatorship-isnt-manipulating-her/5430229002/

Al respecto, con Maldita hubo el caso de que había señalado como bulo una información del diario ABC, y este le respondió señalando que el bulo era de Maldita porque se había basado en el borrador de una ley y no en su redacción definitiva. Maldita no se había puesto en contacto con el reportero autor de la nota, no se disculpó con él, ni aceptó haber difundido ellos mismos un bulo. Pregunto la postura de Clara Jiménez.

https://www.abc.es/sociedad/abci-malditaes-publica-bulo-sobre-informacion-cierta-abc-202105261350_noticia.html

https://www.cope.es/actualidad/sociedad/noticias/que-pasa-cuando-una-empresa-fact-checking-equivoca-caso-malditaes-abc-20210531_1310677

https://web.archive.org/web/20210525195843/https://maldita.es/malditobulo/20210525/inmigrante-ilegal-522-aragon-empadronarse/

https://maldita.es/malditobulo/20210525/inmigrante-ilegal-522-aragon-empadronarse/

2. Recientemente ha habido un conflicto muy personalizado entre Laura Zommer y Viviana Canosa, una popular presentadora, lo que sin duda implica particularidades y odios muy específicos de la política y medios en Argentina.

Pero Canosa señalaba que el esposo de Zommer está siendo procesado por peculado, lo que he confirmado.

¿Piensa Laura Zommer que como en el caso de David Mikkelson, co fundador y CEO de Snopes, una vez que se destapó el escándalo de que este había hecho múltiples plagios en sus chequeos fue separado de la empresa, cuestiones que involucran la imagen pública de los directivos de las verificadoras aunque no sean directamente relacionadas con los chequeos deben ser atendidos?

https://www.snopes.com/2021/08/13/snopes-writers-condemn-plagiarism/

https://chequeado.com/el-explicador/es-verdadero-que-viviana-canosa-se-tomo-en-serio-el-chiste-de-un-influencer-y-compartio-una-desinformacion-en-su-programa/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HF9rcJk9wUU&t=248s

https://www.continental.com.ar/politica/confirman-el-procesamiento-de-nicolas-ducote--ex-intendente-de-pilar_a627ee786bb2c96a3047a3ffe

3. Siendo Laura Zommer y Clara Jiménez ambas miembros de la actual junta asesora del International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN), ¿cuál es su punto de vista acerca de si hay independencia y pluralidad en esa red cuando el director de la misma es un empleado del Instituto Poynter y en la junta asesora está automáticamente el presidente del Instituto, y además también está otra empleada de Poynter, la directora de PolitiFact?

https://www.poynter.org/international-fact-checking-network-transparency-statement/

https://ifcncodeofprinciples.poynter.org/know-more/the-advisory-board-and-our-pool-of-assessors

Y muchas, muchas preguntas más.

Saludos, Desirée.

Tomoo Terada

Email to USA Today on the failed "fact check" on Britney Spears conservatorship and #FreeBritney movement

                    

 Eric Litke

                     Fact Check Editor, USA Today

Dear Mr. Litke:

Thanks for updating your editor's note: "During court proceedings, Spears alleged that the 13-year conservatorship was ´abusive´ and that she should freed (sic) from it."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/07/22/fact-check-britney-spears-conservatorship-isnt-manipulating-her/5430229002/

You are now implicitly acknowledging the #FreeBritney movement was right in its approach and central claim: That Britney Spears was subject to a conservatorship that abused her physically and monetarily, against her will, as she herself declared. Not just that documents "appear to endorse elements of the #FreeBritney movement." Otherwise, it seemed strange to end such a positive and beneficial conservatorship. 

https://web.archive.org/web/20220207223605/https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/07/22/fact-check-britney-spears-conservatorship-isnt-manipulating-her/5430229002/

Anyway, the USA Today "fact check" headline appears now even more ridicule than before: "Fact check: Britney Spears' 12-year-long conservatorship is not taking advantage of her." And the fact the people that you abusively and falsely called "conspiracy theorists" had it right, and you, the "disinformation experts," were wrong, proves the fact checking system it's broken. If you have screwed up publicly on a non-political, non-partisan matter, how much you'll get wrong on politics or covid? So, that's why I'm addressing Baybars Örsek, from Poynter. And Paul Resnick, a consultant to Facebook’s misinformation team.

If you have the power to falsely turn someone a "conspiracy theorist," or falsely claim President Biden don't look his watch when he does, you and your colleagues  must be accountable for all the power that you're using in a wrong way.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9957859/USA-Today-reporter-slammed-playing-victim-false-Biden-report.html

Nothing personal with you. I would have loved to call you, but I have preferred to have a conversation that is clear from the beginning that it has been recorded, such as emails.

Maybe I have been wrong, but I had a very bad impression of your office after seeing tweets like this one, by Ella Lee, congratulating the mess by Devon Link like superb fact checking work "debunking" the #FreeBritney "conspiracy theory." 

https://twitter.com/ByEllaLee/status/1286058760709054464

I'm going to make public this email.

Sincerely,

Tomoo Terada (username at Twitter: Gary Webb)

Queja ante el gobierno de España en contra de la Agencia EFE

Dn. Fernando Hernández Cobo

Consejero de Comunicación Embajada de España en México

Tal le había comentado a su amable colaboradora, busco averiguar cómo presentar una queja formal ante el Gobierno de España en contra de la Agencia EFE. Una agencia estatal de noticias que, en mi experiencia, no respeta la verdad y difunde y perpetua información falsa de forma deliberada, lo que va en contra de cualquier idea de actividad periodística seria, profesional y honesta.

Soy escritor mexicano, autor de una investigación publicada en 2018 por la entonces llamada Fundación Gabriel García Márquez para el Nuevo Periodismo Iberoamericano, que mostraba que la conocidísima empresa estadounidense de comunicación CNN había cometido fraude periodístico con un reportaje manipulado señalando al actor Morgan Freeman como un acosador sexual. Esto nunca ha sido desmentido públicamente por CNN.

El 4 de diciembre de 2018, ahora a punto de cumplirse tres años, el diario El Mundo publicó una nota acerca de mi investigación, haciéndola del conocimiento masivo.

https://www.elmundo.es/cultura/cine/2018/12/04/5c056c7821efa01b378b4737.html

A partir de ese momento, la información fue retomada por una gran cantidad de medios en España y Latinoamérica. Como sería una lista larga, me limito a algunos de los medios de España.

https://www.lavanguardia.com/gente/20181206/453391532787/morgan-freeman-montaje-acoso-sexual-fnpi-chloe-melas.html

https://www.marca.com/tiramillas/cine-tv/2018/12/07/5c0a687de5fdea9e4f8b4610.html

https://www.telecinco.es/informativos/cultura/personajes-mundial-acusados-acoso-sexual-placido-domingo_18_2802195247.html

https://www.vanitatis.elconfidencial.com/famosos/2019-01-18/leticia-dolera-mes-ausente-twitter_1765354/

https://blogs.publico.es/davidtorres/2018/12/06/la-cabeza-cortada-de-morgan-freeman/

En el contexto de las acusaciones a Plácido Domingo EFE publicó este texto de Alicia García Arribas, redactora de Cultura. 

https://www.efe.com/efe/espana/portada/el-acoso-sexual-como-arma-de-poder-le-dices-que-no-a-dios/10010-4043076#

Dice muy claro:

Quedan acusaciones aún por juzgar contra los actores Dustin Hoffman, Morgan Freeman...

El problema es que, hasta la fecha, no hay una denuncia formal contra Freeman por ese tipo de asuntos. Y si no hay denuncia ¿cómo puede ser “juzgado”? Pues reclamar que corrigieran este bulo me valió un correo con amenazas de acción legal en mi contra por parte de la asesoría jurídica de EFE.

https://teradatomoo.blogspot.com/2019/09/la-amenaza-de-acciones-legales-de-la.html

Tuve que reclamar porque lo que hizo EFE fue una implícita descalificación de mi investigación. Si en 2018 primero aparecía CNN afirmando que Freeman era un acosador de mujeres, y unos meses después se difundía mi investigación mostrando que se había tratado de un fraude, convenciendo al público hispanohablante de la inocencia de Freeman, ya en 2019 EFE, con su amplia difusión entre ese mismo público hispanohablante, deslizaba de forma indirecta y sin énfasis pero como supuesto hecho real, que Freeman estaba sujeto a un proceso legal por las acusaciones de 2018. Con ese bulo el público quedaría con la impresión de que “Freeman tan inocente al final no será, como leí en 2018, pues ahora en 2019 está sometido a juicio”. 

Desde 2019 me he puesto en comunicación con la gente de EFE y la única respuesta que he obtenido es la amenaza legal que finalmente no se atrevieron a convertir en realidad. La pandemia ha dificultado la comunicación, no obstante lo principal ha sido la falta de voluntad de una supuesta organización periodística para corregir una mentira comprobable. 

Como ya señalé, CNN nunca me desmintió, sin embargo, en cambio, se dedicó a presionar y conseguir cómplices para limitar la difusión de mi investigación. En ese contexto señalo a EFE como cómplice de CNN para engañar al público hispanohablante, inventándole un proceso legal inexistente al actor Morgan Freeman, a fin de minar la credibilidad de mi investigación.

Por eso me veo obligado a averiguar cómo presentar una queja formal ante el Gobierno de España.

Quiero precisar que no considero todos quienes trabajen en EFE sean gente deshonesta y sin ética, pero si su dirigencia lo es, como lo fue el señor Fernando Garea, anterior presidente de EFE, supuesto periodista de prestigio, sin duda se verán obligados a someterse a los dictados superiores.

Muy atenta y respetuosamente,

Tomoo Terada

Enviado el 2 de diciembre de 2021

ACTUALIZACIÓN:

A la semana de haber sido publicada la crónica de Alicia García Arribas, cuando me di cuenta de su existencia, entonces inicié mi activismo para que se hiciera la corrección pertinente.

Después de múltiples llamadas a todos y cada uno de los miembros del consejo de Administración de EFE, de innumerables llamadas que atendieron las dos secretarias a cargo de la oficina de quien ocupe la presidencia de EFE, a quienes ven llegar y pasar y con quienes empecé a tener trato a la distancia durante la administración de Fernando Garea, anterior a la actual.

Después de todo eso, el 3 de abril de 2023 me di cuenta de que EFE borró toda su nota. Triunfo total. 

CNN ANONYMOUSLY ATTACKED THE ONE WHO REPORTED THEIR FRAUD. NOW THE ATTACK IS ERASED.

Censorship, journalistic corruption

CNN ANONYMOUSLY ATTACKED THE ONE WHO REPORTED THEIR FRAUD. NOW THE ATTACK IS ERASED.

 

UPDATE: EMAIL SENT TO DAVID VIGILANTE

David Vigilante

Executive Vice President and General Counsel for CNN and Turner Sports

As I told Mariana Pinango, the fact that the Peruvian newspaper La República republishes the note that it kept erased for more than a year, in which she attacked me, hidden behind anonymity, changes nothing.

It is evident that you were betting that feigning false ignorance, pretending that I was never on your radar, this would fade away.

So, after writing to Ted Boutros, Alan Duke, people related to CNN, and many more, in English and Spanish.

After the short and misleading line on English Wikipedia, but that nevertheless notes that the fraud by CNN against Morgan Freeman has been publicly pointed out. And that if it changes, it is deleted, it will be evident that you are behind.

And after recently I wrote to a La República journalist in front of the thousands that took courses online at the Knight Center website.

After all that you decide to repost your anonymous attack against me.

Well, Vigilante guy, then stop hiding behind your desk, move your ass and sue me, because I will not shut up pointing out on your corruption. There are offices of CNN in Mexico (I even called them, and they preferred to kept silent).

As John Malone, of Warner Discovery said “I would like to see CNN evolve back to the kind of journalism that it started with, and actually have journalists, which would be unique and refreshing”. 

Fabricating news and manipulate information according vested interests it's not journalism.

UPDATE: After the reposting, now new erasing:

http://web.archive.org/web/20220903012329/https://larepublica.pe/espectaculos/1370847-morgan-freeman-inocente-periodista-cnn-fabrico-pruebas-denuncia-acoso-sexual-actor-hollywood-harvey-weinstein-me-too-mexico-usa/

 

• Two years ago the CNN spokeswoman for LatAm attacked the author of the investigation published in Spanish, widespread in Ibero-American countries, that proved the then recent  report of sexual harassment about the actor Morgan Freeman it was just a fraud. She requested to not be identified, so the attack published by a newspaper to be anonymous, and she and CNN avoid being accountable if stated an official statement instead. After she was outed, the note has been deleted.

 

• The Peruvian newspaper La República has just deleted the note in which Mariana Pinango asked not to be identified to attack Tomoo Terada without consequences. The action it was part of the conspiracy by CNN to sabotage the spreading of the investigation and retribute Terada for dare to call out CNN. Another newspaper, Spain’s El Mundo, was pressed by CNN’s Emily Kuhn to erase a viral tweet announcing Terada’s investigation.

 

• Tomoo Terada, author of the investigation proving the fraud, had written in Spanish to Pinango and in English to David Vigilante, CNN's lawyer, stating that he knew who was responsible for the attack. Soon after the attack it was erased. So, in more than two years, CNN never denied the accusation of the Morgan Freeman report to be a fabricated journalistic fraud. Conversely, CNN backed out even of the anonymous attack against Terada that they had promoted.

 

• It took Terada more than a year to find out that Pinango was the one hiding behind the “from CNN” unnamed source attribution, and to obtain a copy of the email she sent to La República

 

 

 

Mexico City, November 30, 2020.

The Peruvian newspaper La República (https://larepublica.pe/) (@larepublica_pe) has just deleted (https://larepublica.pe/espectaculos/1370847-morgan-freeman-inocente-periodista-cnn-fabrico-pruebas-denuncia-sexual-harassment-actor-hollywood-harvey-weinstein-me-too-mexico-usa /) without any explanation the note "Morgan Freeman: Someone is questioning the complaint against the actor" (https://web.archive.org/web/20181218034855if_/http://larepublica.pe/espectaculos/1370847-morgan-freeman-inocente-periodista-cnn-fabrico-pruebas-denuncia-acoso-sexual-actor-hollywood-harvey-weinstein-me-too-mexico-usa).

After the original publication of that note by La República two years ago, covering the investigation, very widely spread between Spanish spoken audience, by writer Tomoo Terada proving that the then recent CNN report pointing out to the actor Morgan Freeman as a sexual harasser it was a fraud, Mariana Piñango (@MarianaCNNPR) (Mariana.Pinango@ turner.com) CNN spokeswoman emailed the newspaper calling “the claims of columnist Tomoo Terada” as false, but requesting not to be identified.

The email addressed a copy to Emily Kuhn, a spokeswoman for CNN Digital Worldwide and the Reliable Sources program, hosted by Brian Stelter, who pressed Spain’s newspaper El Mundo to erase a viral tweet announcing the investigation by Terada.

More than a year later, Terada learned that the person hiding behind the “from CNN” unnamed source attribution it was Pinango and got a copy of the email she had sent to the newspaper. For him, it's crystal clear CNN did that way to later claim, if asked, that Terada’s investigation it was not on their radar, or if so, it was not taken seriously to deserving an official rebuttal by them. So, they decided it was better to promote an anonymous attack disguised as an informal rebuttal done by an unnamed member instead. But after being discovered that behind it was the CNN spokeswoman, it would be impossible for CNN to claim that they never knew of Terada’s investigation exposing them as fraudsters making up Freeman's report, or did not care. 

He wrote to her before the pandemic, refuting her claims point by point, such as the actor's apology “it is ridiculous that you want to present the apology that Freeman gave as a proof of discharge of the fraud that you committed, he was the first one fooled by you." Pinango has not responded to Terada.

Recently Terada wrote to Pinango in Spanish and in English to David Vigilante (David.Vigilante@turner.com), CNN's legal vice president, with a copy to Jaime Abello Banfi, director of what is now called the Fundación Gabo (https://fundaciongabo.org /), which originally published Terada's research, in order to prove his identity. He informed Vigilante that he knew the attack published by La República had been by Pinango. And he commented to Vigilante that CNN had looked evil bad by anonymously attacking him instead of answering him with a “direct, public and firm” denial.

It is shortly after Terada wrote to Pinango, Vigilante and the web editor of La República, Rider Bendezú, that the note used by the CNN spokeswoman anonymously attacking Terada it was deleted. 

He thinks CNN recognized more than implicitly the fraud committed if during more than two years  has avoided issuing an official denial, and promoted in just one outlet an anonymous attack instead, and later even backed out of the attack done erasing it without any explanations, after being discovered spokeswoman authorship. 

UPDATE January 18, 2021.

Published on December 8, 2020, by Los Angeles´ La Opinión, the "most-read print newspaper in Spanish in the United States" after the news on CNN fraud circulating for more than two years through Ibero-American media, without a denial.

https://laopinion.com/2020/12/08/morgan-freeman-y-las-acusaciones-de-acoso-que-enfrento/

"The accusations against Freeman disappear

Months later, everything was diluted and the accusations led to nothing. The law did not intervene and there was even talk of journalistic fraud by the media (CNN) that had spoken with the alleged victims, according to an article published by El Mundo. It was even said that everything had been devised by a ´racist reporter´."

 

El Mundo is Spain’s second national newspaper. Some kind of Spain’s Washington Post.  CNN pressed the newspaper to erase a viral tweet announcing coverage of Terada’s investigation. And to alter the note that were dealing with it. But CNN never asked for a retraction, never attempt to debunk it, never publicly denied it. 

Will attempt CNN to press an American newspaper like La Opinión, as they did with Ibero-American newspapers El Mundo (Spain) and La República (Peru) to erase and alter the information on their Morgan Freeman fraud?

For more information:

tomoo.terada@gmail.com, tomoo.terada@protonmail.com, teradatomoo.blogspot.com, https://www.facebook.com/tomoo.terada.33/, @NazarioB1 (has been censored too)

The account @Tomoo_Terada is locked due to Twitter censorship, but it can receive DMs.

@TeradaTomoo is available.

Correction: The original link to the material erased by La República it worked at first, but later ended as a broken link. Terada corrected it and wrote Vigilante if he and CNN are playing dirty tricks corrupting and pressing people of Google and Internet Archive.

The original Spanish press release has a lot of links to the media in Spanish that did coverage of the original 2018 story. It's because of being so widely spread that it is so “strange” CNN chose to anonymously attack Terada in one outlet, and press to erase and alter information in the other one, instead of issue an official statement.

https://teradatomoo.blogspot.com/2020/11/cnn-ataco-anonimamente-quien-denuncio.html