This is the English version of the Obrador's interview. Has been publish in Newsweek En Español magazine, June 28th, 2009.
by ALEJANDRO LELO DE LARREA
2012: "The Rebirth of Mexico"
Andrés Manuel López Obrador has not allowed interviews with printed media for a long time, but this time he accepts, within the context of the Iztapalapa mess. The meeting is at a simple restaurant in Iztapalapa [one of the poorest zones in Mexico City] where the “executive menu” costs 45 pesos ($3 U.S. dollars). Next to him, is his wife Beatriz Gutiérrez, whom he married in 2006, three years after becoming a widower. His youngest son (he has four boys) gets close to the table at moments; he is learning to walk and is a little over a year old. His other sons are over 20 now. In his paused style and his coastal accent, he talks with Alejandro Lelo de Larrea and Hugo R. Hernández for more than 40 minutes about the red flags in the country, about Barack Obama, businessmen, his movement, President Calderón, and his aspirations for 2012. Extracts:
YOU HAVE VISITED OVER TWO THOUSAND MUNICIPALITIES DURING ALMOST THREE YEARS. YOU HAVE SURELY SEEN MANY THINGS A LOT OF MEXICANS CANNOT SEE. WHICH OF THOSE HAS IMPRESSED YOU THE MOST DURING THIS TIME?
The hardest thing is, no doubt, poverty. I had to go to very poor places, with very poor people; poverty that stems from the lack of natural resources, as well as material, economic, and social poverty, especially in the mountain ranges of Guerrero, in Oaxaca, Chiapas, Hidalgo, the Zongolica zone in Veracruz. These are the poorest regions. There is also a lot of poverty in Puebla. That is the hardest part. Seeing malnourished people, that is the toughest.
DO YOU THINK THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT SEE THIS, OR DOES NOT WANT TO SEE IT?
Does not see it, it does not care. They attend the inauguration of some health or education center, but they see the social problems as if these were to be solved with services, in the best of cases, when these are related to the lack of opportunities, with the abandonment of the fields, with the lack of support to agriculture and fishing, with the lack of employment. Sure, this is a very complex problem.
DO YOU SEE DETERIORATION IN THE LAST THREE YEARS UNDER THE GOVERNMENT OF FELIPE CALDERÓN?
Yes, things have deteriorated and, unfortunately, the worst is yet to come, because before this last economic downfall there was already too much unemployment. Mexico already had the first place in labor export in the world, insecurity and violence had been unleashed. There will be more family and social problems; there will be more insecurity and more violence.
IN 1994 WE HAD AN ARMED UPRISING AND THE COUNTRY WAS NOT UNDER CONDITIONS AS BAD AS THEY ARE TODAY. WHY DO YOU THINK THERE HAS NOT BEEN AN ARMED MOVEMENT IN MEXICO?
Because people do not want violence. They have hopes that we will be able to do something with this [political] movement. That is what I think. Although the situation is serious and tense in several regions of the country.
SO, THERE ARE RED FLAGS. ARE THERE PEOPLE SAYING ‘WE BETTER GET THE ARMS READY’?
Yes, there are people proposing that, but I have told them I disagree. I respect their viewpoint, but I do not share it; that path would only lead to more suffering and would provide the power mafia in Mexico with a pretext to establish an openly authoritarian regime: a regime of terror. Also, it would become a confrontation between Mexicans—the people versus the Army—and soldiers are children of peasants, workers, members of the middle class. Neither Roberto Hernández [former owner of Banamex, one of the largest banks in Mexico] nor [Carlos] Salinas will show up for such a confrontation. None of the members of the power mafia in Mexico will show up. Roberto Hernández lives in London. He has a castle in France and lives in London, and Salinas lives in Dublin. Most of them spend their time abroad. So we are not going to allow a confrontation between brothers. Nothing would be solved. That is why we insist on peaceful and electoral means, even if the mafia irresponsibly tries to obstruct and even impede the electoral path.
EVEN IN YOU ARE ALSO BEING QUALIFIED AS VIOLENT?
Yes, although they are wrong. We were deprived of the Presidency of the Republic and not a single window has been broken over that.
THERE ARE SOME WHO SAY THE CALLING YOU MADE—IN LATE JULY, 2006—TO TAKE THE STREETS OF REFORMA, JUÁREZ, MADERO, AND THE DOWNTOWN PLAZA WAS TO, FINALLY, PACIFY THE MOVEMENT. WAS IT SO?
Among other things, it was to prevent violence because people were so upset. There is a film made by Luis Mandoki called “The Fraud” (Fraude: México 2006), where I explain my reasons and evidence is shown. Back then Mitofsky performed a poll and 13 percent of the population said they were going to rise up in arms. We are talking of over 10 million Mexicans! People were very upset then and we could not allow the sidetracking of the movement, nor violence, because we would solve nothing. That is why we acted as we did. It was a radical move; very strong, but pacific.
YOU SENT LETTERS, FIRST IN JANUARY, AND LATER IN APRIL, TO [U.S.] PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA. DID YOU GET ANY ANSWERS?
No, but I do believe that he received the second letter. I sent it through official channels. It was delivered to the Embassy, and the person there told me it was being sent to the White House. I think he got the letter because, in the eve of his trip to Mexico, there was a feeling that all was being oriented to recognize Calderón's “great government” for its combat to organized crime. They were preparing something along those lines and they wanted Obama’s backup. They were working on that. And it would have been a mistake—with all due respect to Obama—if he had made an ill-advised statement. That was the purpose of the letter: To warn him that he was coming to a country where there mafia rules; where there is a group of 30 overlords who have taken control over everything; that these 30 have accumulated wealth during the last 26 years as it has not been seen elsewhere in the world; that all this was achieved since they got power over the State, they have turned it into an instrument at the service of a minority; that all this plundering, that all this policy of pillage began with [Carlos] Salinas, with the privatizations.
I mentioned the issue with the Forbes magazine: In 1987, in the list of the richest men in the world, there was only one Mexican, one year before Salinas was imposed in power. In the 1994 list, at the end of the Salinas period, there were 24, and they accumulate $44 billion dollars. This group has conquered all powers: There is such thing as Constitutional Power, but, in fact, a group has taken control of all those powers: The group that stole the presidency from us; the ones that are keeping Calderón in Los Pinos [equivalent to the White House]; and it is them who are responsible for the national tragedy, and especially for the insecurity and violence because the economic and pillage policy they have implemented has doomed the Mexican people to mere survival and banishment; if Mexicans want to progress, they have to self-exile, because the future has been canceled for millions of them.
Also, the problem of insecurity and violence is not solved only with policies, soldiers, walls, and more severe laws. It will be solved with better living conditions and employment. This is more effective, cheaper, and more humane. So, pretending to solve the problem by militarizing the border is just not having the slightest idea of what is happening in Mexico. I explained all this to Obama, and I believe that he did take the argument into account because he acted very moderately during his visit.
THERE IS A VERSION STATING THAT YOU HAD PREVIOUS CONTACT WITH OBAMA. IS THIS TRUE?
No. I sympathized with him since his campaign. And it was out of conviction, due to his discourse and, especially, his origins. It reminded me of [Martin] Luther King´s fight for social rights and the horror it would represent to continue with the policies of [George W.] Bush. That would have been a liability for mankind. That is why I gave my opinion, but in a respectful manner because if we do not want them to get involved in the internal life of Mexico, then we must not get involved with theirs. Back then I said that I would like Obama to win. I said it here, then I went to Los Angeles and repeated there it before the elections. John McCain came here during his campaign and spoke with Calderón, and he (Calderón) placed his bet on McCain. Later he did not say a thing about that.
In Los Angeles I explained my support saying that Obama’s proposal in migration issues was much better than McCain’s, which was to continue with walls and raids, not searching for the humane and social solution to the migration phenomenon. I think that Obama could look for a better cooperation between peoples—between governments—to fully confront the migration phenomenon. We must understand that as long as there is no economic growth in Mexico—and more jobs—people will continue leaving the country, migrating out of necessity, We must find a cooperation relationship between the governments of the United States and Mexico, just as it happens in the European Union, where more developed countries support less developed ones. I feel that is the direction we must take.
BUT, APPARENTLY, THE U.S. HAS NEVER HAD SUCH INTEREST.
That is because the diplomatic work has to be done in that regards. That is what Calderón should be doing: Looking for such agreement. Actually he is doing nothing, he is clueless. Calderón would be a fine Public Ministry lawyer, at the most—and I do not mean any disrespect for Public Ministries. But the mafia imposed him as president to prevent changes in the country.
IT SEEMS CLEAR THAT YOU WILL BE A CANDIDATE FOR 2012. YOU HAVE MAINTAINED A 16 PERCENT IN PUBLIC PREFERENCE AFTER THREE YEARS OF HAVING MOST OF THE MEDIA AGAINST YOU.
We do not know what the destiny will bring, it is still far in the future. There is a permanent confrontation. It makes sense that the mafia does not like me, but we will see that the people say. I just proved it in a public meeting in Iztapalapa: the political mafia, the power mafia in Mexico is very powerful, but the Mexican people are stronger than that. I am betting on the people, there is no other choice for me. There is no money and, also, I do not want to compromise [to vested interests]. I did not compromise in the earlier campaign, and I will not compromise in the future because I do not want to be a puppet, I do not want to get there with my hands tied.
IN A LARGE MEASURE THAT IS WHY YOU DID NOT MAKE IT IN 2006. YOU TOLD ME IN A TALK IN 2005: “I RATHER NOT GET THERE THAN DO SO WITH MY HANDS TIED.” AND IT SEEMS THAT IS WHAT HAPPENED.
That is right.
YOU DID NOT NEGOTIATE WITH THEM. IT IS KNOWN THAT ROBERTO HERNÁNDEZ AND ELBA ESTHER [GORDILLO, LEADER FOR LIFE OF THE MEXICAN EDUCATION WORKERS SYNDICATE] LOOKED FOR YOU.
That is true, but I never met with them.
DO YOU THINK THEY WILL LET YOU GET THERE? WHAT MUST HAPPEN FOR YOU TO OBTAIN THE PRESIDENCY OF MEXICO?
A large movement, and a lot of organization. In 2006 the election was stolen from us because, of course, the mafia does not want a change, but they also leveraged on something we were lacking—organization. So this tour across the country also has the purpose of organizing people: We already have 2.2 million representatives of the ‘Legitimate Government´ in the country. We have representatives in the 2,038 municipalities. I just completed an evaluation tour: Between June 1 and 16 y visited 31 states and Mexico City to evaluate the work of the municipal committees. This is an organization with 12-15 thousand citizens because each committee is formed by 5, 7, 9, 11 members, and there are 2,038 committees. We did not have this organizing structure before. Now those committees are working, they have tasks to do, and we will have an evaluation meeting every three months to see our progress. If there is not a deep change in Mexico, we will not find the solution to the national issues. If this mafia continues its domination, the economic, social and political situations in the country will be increasingly worse. The change needed by this country is not from the top-down, it must come with a wide, plural and inclusive bottom-up movement.
ALWAYS PACIFIC?
Always pacific, for such is the path, even electorally.
BUT IF THE ELECTORAL AUTHORITIES ARE NON-RESPONSIVE?
For example, the trap here in Iztapalapa: They set obstacles, make this move. It is an anticipated fraud. We have made a decision: We have 11 days to go, it is a complete challenge and we will see the results obtained. There will always be obstacles. We know that the cards are marked. But I maintain that it can be done: It depends on people finally waking up, although there are many who are aware now, we need that people continue waking up. I am confident that this change of mind comes to being; I expect a revolution of conscience because we cannot carry on sleeping through this nightmare, with everything that is going on. We can achieve the renovation of the country. When? 2012, I believe, not because the main thing is to arrive to the National Palace [the presidential office in downtown Mexico], but because there is always an opportunity close to the presidential succession—that is when conditions are more appropriate.
BUT IN 2010, DUE TO ITS SYMBOLISM [IT IS THE 200TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE INDEPENDENCE], YOU DO NOT SEE A RISK OF AN UPHEAVAL?
No, I cannot risk a hypothesis. I am aware that the situation is critical in Mexico, there are tensions, and that the date is symbolic. Yes, it is doubtlessly a special year, but I do not believe that is the road to follow. And I not only tell this to you, I say it in Oaxaca, in Guerrero, where there are people who think otherwise. People who I respect, but with whom I do not share such viewpoint.
WHO IS THE BEST LEADER IN LATIN AMERICA, THE ONE CLOSEST TO WHAT YOU FEEL IS IDEAL?
I have always admired [former Chilenian president Salvador] Allende.
AND FROM THE CURRENT ONES, THOSE AT THE LEFT AND ITS DIFFERENT HUES?
Put them all together in a cement mixer, and whatever comes out from it is what I like. They are all very good.
ARE YOU MORE LIKE LULA OR HUGO CHÁVEZ?
That is something I always am asked. Each country has its own history, they cannot be extrapolated. I like them all. That is why I said to mix them all together. Of course, I am a follower of Luther King, but I think that the best U.S. President has been [Franklin Delano] Roosevelt. I hope Obama has Roosevelt’s virtue to pull his country out of the crisis. Roosevelt received the country in a severe crack—hopeless—and was able to push the people ahead. I hope that Obama has the virtue and the luck.
DO YOU THINK THAT THE U.S. HAS A CLEAR VIEW OF THE MEXICAN SITUATION YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT?
I believe so.
THEY ARE INTERESTED IN MEXICAN STABILITY, ARE THEY NOT?
That is why we must have democracy, political stability, and social peace in Mexico. All that comes to being based on a true democracy, and there is none now. There is an oligarchy: Government at the service of a few. When we have a democracy we will have stability, social peace, development, and well-being. And this is also convenient for our neighbors.
AMONG AL THE PERSONS YOU MENTION AS THE MAFIA—ROBERTO HERNÁNDEZ, CLAUDIO X. GONZÁLEZ AND OTHERS—YOU NEVER MENTION TWO NAMES THAT ALSO BENEFITED FROM CARLOS SALINAS’ GOVERNMENT. I MEAN CARLOS SLIM AND RICARDO SALINAS PLIEGO. ARE THEY IN THIS GROUP OR NOT?
Both were benefited by Salinas, but I did not want to include them because they do not have a political activity, they are not using power to divide Mexico.
ARE THEY JUST DEDICATED TO BUSINESS?
They are dedicated to making money. But the others link the amassing of wealth with the accumulation of power; they nourish the economic power and the political power. They are the ones benefited by the regime and traffic of influences. Roberto Hernández commands, gives orders to Calderón. Elba Esther Gordillo asked him [Hernández] during a telephone call to London: ‘You tell me what we need to do; what do we do first, Roberto, the Energy Reform or the Fiscal Reform?’ And he answered: ‘Energy Reform first’. And so it happened!
WAS IT THE SAME WITH [FORMER MEXICAN PRESIDENTS] ZEDILLO AND FOX?
The same. And Roberto Hernández is a special case because he has amassed a large fortune and great power. He bet on Fox and allowed him to name Francisco Gil Diaz as Ministry of the Treasury. He bets on Calderón and the same happens. He is in charge at several government agencies; he holds stocks in Televisa. He has power. The Director of Pemex [Petróleos Mexicanos] is one of his associates. Many are employed by him. It is different with Slim. It is very possible that he picks up the phone and calls someone, but he is not on the front lines as the others. I am not exculpating them. I am saying that there are 10 men here and that the corresponding authorities must investigate their complicity.
WHICH WOULD BE THE MAIN OBJECTIVE OF YOUR MOVEMENT?
The transformation of the country: making history. Politics is about making history. What we want is to transform Mexico. There have been only three transformations in our history: The Independence [1810], the Reform [1857], and the Revolution [1910]. We want the fourth transformation of the country’s public life
HOW WOULD YOU CALL IT?
The Rebirth of Mexico.
viernes, 11 de diciembre de 2009
LÓPEZ OBRADOR LOOKS TO 2012
jueves, 3 de diciembre de 2009
EL DOCTOR QUE NO ES DOCTOR
México, D. F., a 3 de abril de 2009.
A QUIEN CORRESPONDA:
Número de solicitud:
0001100128009
Información solicitada:
Solicito copia ESCANEADA de los títulos (o validación u homologación de éstos por parte de la autoridad mexicana) de MAESTRO y DOCTOR en Ingeniería en Ciencias Petroleras, otorgado por la Escuela Nacional Superior del Petróleo y de los Motores, del Instituto Francés de Petróleo (Francia), al C. José Enrique Villa Rivera, director del Instituto Politécnico Nacional.
La copia ESCANEADA solicito es respecto de los que dice su currículum oficial, a la letra: “Maestro y Doctor en Ingeniería en Ciencias Petroleras por la Escuela Nacional Superior del Petróleo y de los Motores, del Instituto Francés de Petróleo (Francia) en 1983”.
(sic).
Respuesta:
En atención a la solicitud recibida con No. de Folio 000110012809, dirigida a la Unidad de Enlace de SECRETARÍA DE EDUCACIÓN PÚBLICA, el día 06/03/2009, nos permitimos hacer de su conocimiento que, con fundamento en el artículo 42, de la Ley Federal de Transparencia y Acceso a la Información Pública Gubernamental, después de realizar una búsqueda exhaustiva, en la Dirección General de Profesiones, se encontró el registro del C.JOSÉ ENRIQUE VILLA RIVERA como Ing. Químico Industrial con cédula profesional No. 0985134, pero no se encontraron sus registros como maestro y doctor en Ingeniería en Ciencias Petroleras, por lo que no es posible enviarle las copias de los documentos solicitados.
Es preciso señalar que esta persona puede no haber solicitado aún el registro de sus grados académicos, o bien, puede ser que los haya registrado en alguna Entidad federativa. Lo anterior no prejuzga sobre los conocimientos y calidad de los estudios que esta persona tenga o haya realizado.
Sin otro particular, reciba un cordial saludo.
ATENTAMENTE
Patricia Ramírez Buendía G.
miércoles, 2 de diciembre de 2009
Las dos caras de Federico Arreola
Por ALEJANDRO LELO DE LARREA
Rafael Giménez no pensaba que el espacio para publicar encuestas en Milenio Diario se cerraría por la terquedad de su entonces director general, Federico Arreola, y por entregar un estudio de opinión que ubicaba a Fox 5 puntos por sobre Francisco Labastida en la intención de voto presidencial, a un mes de la elección de 2000.
Todo comenzó el 28 de abril de 2000, tres días después del primer debate presidencial de aquel año. Federico Arreola, necio como es, le insistió a Rafael Giménez que saliera a campo para levantar el estudio de opinión que publicarían casi de inmediato.
Rafael Giménez, propietario de Arcop, empresa que desde 1996 ha trabajado fundamentalmente para el PAN, le había advertido a Arreola que no era conveniente salir a campo para levantar la encuesta el fin de semana posterior al debate, porque Fox lo había ganado claramente y había una burbuja que lo beneficiaba. Le recomendó que se esperaran una semana. Pero en su terquedad, Arreola dijo que ya levantara el estudio de opinión para ganarle la nota a Reforma. Los entrevistadores salieron a hacer su trabajo. Rafael Giménez sabía que Fox saldría adelante, pero esperaba que fuese por un margen pequeño. Pero el resultado de la encuesta sorprendió a todos: ¡Fox arriba por 5 puntos!
Cuando Giménez le entregó a Arreola los resultados, se acabó la paz para el demóscopo en Milenio. Incrédulo en el resultado, el director del diario primero la sometió a votación de tres personas: él mismo, su brazo derecho Enriqueta Medina y el propio Giménez. Y vino la decisión autoritaria de Arreola que, casi en un arrebato le dijo a Giménez: “Pues decido yo, porque mi voto es de calidad, y decido que no vamos a publicar la encuesta este fin de semana”.
La instrucción del entonces director de Milenio fue que los entrevistadores salieran nuevamente a campo para librar la burbuja del posdebate. Pero de manera intempestiva, ese fin de semana la actitud de Arreola para con Giménez cambió drásticamente, y lo citó en la redacción del periódico.
Arreola le dijo a Giménez que tenía información que lo descalificaba profesionalmente y le reclamó que trabajara de manera simultánea para el PAN y para Milenio, lo que constituía un conflicto de intereses. En ese momento le dijo que estaba fuera del periódico.
Giménez reconoció que trabajaba para los panistas desde 1996 y estuvo de acuerdo en que había sido una mala decisión hacer encuestas simultáneamente para el rotativo. Por ello, no dudó en que la decisión del director de buscar otro pollster era la más adecuada. Pero defendió que lo que estaba haciendo para Milenio era un trabajo metodológica y técnicamente profesional.
Pero Giménez también le reprochó a Arreola dos errores que cometió: el primero, que se esperó a que el resultado de la encuesta desfavoreciera a Francisco Labastida y al PRI para sacar a cuento que Giménez también trabajaba para el PAN. Arreola argumentó que antes no tenía ningún dato de la vinculación de Giménez con los panistas y éste le respondió que en Milenio prácticamente todos los altos mandos lo sabían: Ignacio Rodríguez (entonces director de Milenio Semanal), Ciro Gómez Leyva (entonces director adjunto del diario), y Raymundo Riva Palacio (entonces director editorial).
Los argumentos de Arreola en el sentido de que desconocía que Giménez trabajaba para el PAN se caen fácilmente, pues fue público que en octubre y noviembre de 1999, cuando se estaba negociando una posible gran alianza entre PAN y PRD contra el PRI, el propio Giménez era el invitado del blanquiazul.
La línea de Los Pinos
Así como Arreola, siendo director de Milenio se acercó a Andrés Manuel López Obrador en 2005 para defenderlo casi a diario en su columna y en las páginas del rotativo, en 2000 hizo lo propio con el equipo del entonces candidato presidencial del PRI, Francisco Labastida. Acaso por eso era su temor de publicar una encuesta a favor de Fox.
Después de que Arreola despidió a Giménez buscó a Demotecnia, de María de las Heras, esposa del priísta César Augusto Santiago. Hacía la última semana de abril de 2000 Arreola formalizó la invitación a María para hacer las encuestas de Milenio. Ella declinó porque no le pareció correcto haber trabajado todo el tiempo para el PRI y llegar a un medio de comunicación en plena campaña.
Además, estaba en la disyuntiva de perder-perder: si el resultado de Demotecnia daba a Labastida arriba iban a decir que era porque María es priísta, y si daba abajo a Labastida dirían que María estaba resentida o era una traidora, porque no formaba parte del equipo de campaña del sinaloense. Sabía que en ese momento no tendría credibilidad, y por eso tomó la brillante decisión de no aceptar.
Federico Arreola fue corriendo a Los Pinos a pedir línea con Liébano Sáenz, el entonces secretario particular del presidente Zedillo. Le pidió que le recomendara una empresa encuestadora para Milenio.
Como siempre ocurría cuando alguien le pedía línea a Liébano Sáenz sobre empresas de estudios de opinión pública, remitió a Arreola con Ulises Beltrán, el hombre fuerte de las encuestas en Los Pinos de 1988 a 2000.
Arreola acudió a las oficinas que tenía la Presidencia de la República en Constituyentes para entrevistarse con Beltrán, quien lo recibió y le expuso que cualquiera de las empresas afiliadas a la AMAI (Asociación Mexicana de Agencias de Investigación de Mercados y Opinión Pública) reunía los requisitos de calidad y de confiabilidad para hacerse cargo de las encuestas de Milenio.
Arreola le insistió en que le diera la línea más directa, que le recomendara concretamente una empresa. Ulises Beltrán le habló de AC Nielsen, una afamada firma de investigación de mercados. “Ustedes pueden contratar a quien mejor les parezca”, le remarcó Beltrán a Arreola.
Pero hábil como es para quedar bien con el poder, Federico Arreola acató la línea de la Presidencia de la República y salió corriendo a contratar a AC Nielsen.
El directivo de Milenio no consideró lo que es de dominio público en el gremio de encuestadores y debería haber sido valorado: AC Nielsen es una empresa que sabe medir la penetración de la Coca Cola o la Pepsi Cola y otros productos de consumo, o ratings de televisión y radio. Esta fue la primera incursión de AC Nielsen en estudios de opinión pública, de campañas electorales. Y acaso fue el último, pues su desafortunada actuación le generó problemas incluso con sus clientes que le reclamaron por sus pésimos resultados.
Milenio: errores y mentiras
Precisamente en la manera en que Milenio contrató a la nueva empresa y en cómo trabajó radicaron las críticas que hizo Rafael Giménez en varios foros de encuestadores. Los graves errores de AC Nielsen se evidenciaron desde la primera encuesta que publicó en el rotativo, en la que ubicó al Partido del Trabajo (PT) con 10 por ciento de intención de votos, por encima del PRD que resultó con 9.7 por ciento. Este dato fue la burla en el gremio de los encuestadores, pues jamás en la historia de ambos partidos, a nivel nacional, el PRD ha estado abajo del PT. En este mismo sondeo, mágicamente, Labastida apareció 6 puntos por encima de Fox.
Además, Milenio mintió varias veces a sus lectores en la divulgación de las dos encuestas que levantó AC Nielsen e hizo públicas entre mayo y junio de 2000. La primera falsedad: que esta era “la continuación de una serie” verdad es había roto la continuidad al salir Rafael Giménez del diario y ser sustituido por un nuevo pollster.
La segunda falsedad de Milenio: en la encuesta de junio da 4 puntos a favor de Labastida, y afirma que es un cambio de un punto respecto del mes anterior, cuando en realidad se había movido dos puntos.
Por cierto, en el último estudio de opinión que divulga Milenio, el resultado es prácticamente idéntico al de Reforma y al del Centro de Estudios de Occidente (CEO), entonces todavía ligado a la Universidad de Guadalajara (UdeG).
Lo que pareció muy claro de la actitud de Federico Arreola en Milenio, es que con él al frente y sus compromisos con el equipo de campaña de Labastida en 2000, jamás iba a permitir que se publicara una encuesta que favoreciera a Fox, sin importarle el ridículo en que a la postre quedó el periódico. Arreola fue despedido de Milenio por Carlos Marín, en octubre de 2006, después de que el rotativo lo soportó durante más de dos años, defendiendo a Andrés Manuel López Obrador.
FUENTES: Entrevistas con Rafael Giménez, Raymundo Riva Palacio, Ricardo de la Peña, Miguel Basáñez.
HE AQUÍ LA SERIE DE ENCUESTAS QUE PUBLICÓ MILENIO EN 2000, CON FEDERICO ARREOLA COMO DIRECTOR GENERAL. ÉL MISMO CENSURÓ LA PUBLICACIÓN DE ABRIL.
Dic Enero Febrero Marzo Abril Mayo Junio
Labastida 42 38 38 37 Censurada *43 *42
Fox 38 34 37 35 Censurada *36 *39
*Estas encuestas las levantó AC Nielsen