Quote:
Originally Posted by suarezn
Not defending Alejandrina like NALS, but the point is that Nuria is not ALL squeaky clean herself as she's associating with hugely corrupt people ans she's not reporting on THEM, because they are her friends...
|
That's expected.
The real issue in all of this is that Nuria negates that she ever said the house is valued at RD$50 million (of course, Alejandrina said that Nuria claimed it was RD$40 million) when in fact all she said was that its value was in "the millions". Such vague comments in any report shows that she was careful in choosing her words as to avoid being sued.
Nuria also negates that she ever said that the home was built with funds from the Secretary of Education.
Here is the problem, while Nuria never said those things per se, her report insinuated such and the proof of that is what many people keep alluding to based on the report. In other words, while Nuria never said how much the home must be worth and that public funds were used to finance its construction, the general public accepted as if that is what Nuria was saying.
Hence Alejandrina's response to such defamation attempt and the reaction in many sectors of society as if Nuria discovered an act of corruption, when Nuria herself has said that she never said the home was financed with public funds.
Then, of course, there is the "minor" details that most people have not noticed or conveniently ignored.
What are those "minor" details?
Nuria's report targeted Alejandrina (being head of the Secretary of Education is much more prestigious and important than the role Alejandrina's husband has in the government on another department) and its obvious that the report made it seem that the home belonged to Alejandrina.
What are the "minor" details?
1. Both the land and home are not in Alejandrina's name, but in her husband's name. Hence, the property in question doesn't belong to Alejandrina per se.
2. Alejandrina's husband was the one who took out a loan from congress to finance the initiation of construction of the villa back in 2002.
3. Alejandrina's husband's declaration of properties/wealth in 2004 is where the home is declared with a value of RD$5 million at that time.
Hence, the property in question legally belongs to Alejandrina's husband while the report is almost exclusively focused on Alejandrina. Add to that the careful selection of words as to insinuate something while not blatantly saying it (although the general public got the insinuation quite well and accepted it as if it was what Nuria was saying... in part because that was, perhaps, what Nuria wanted to say but due to potential liability issues; she took a more murky road that allowed her to make her claim while, at the same time, avoid saying it).
So, Nuria is not 'squeaky clean' in that sense, but the damage to the image of Alejandrina was done as it was probably planned from the get go, while her husband (the legal owner of the property being debated) is left unscathed. In fact, people in general don't mention her husband, but rather divert their attack to Alejandrina and only Alejandrina because that's the person Nuria focused her report around.
A few questions people should ask themselves include:
1. Why did Nuria focused her story on Alejandrina and not on her husband, given that her husband is the legal owner of both the land and the home?
2. Did Alejandrina's greater visibility as Secretary of Education influenced Nuria's decision to go after her as oppose to her husband, a person with a less visible position?
3. Why would Nuria go to such lengths to to show that Alejandrina didn't declared the Jarabacoa property when she knew that the property was declared by her husband, the legal owner of such?
4. Since Nuria continues to claim that she never said that the public funds were used to build the property, why did so many people jump to that conclusion from the day the report was aired? Why do so many people assume that that is what Nuria claimed and showed in her report when Nuria herself denies ever making such claim?
5. This one is a rhetorical question of sort, but one does need to wonder if Nuria will ever make a report on the Piera family villa in Palmar de Ocoa? I mean, she did juxtaposed the Jarabacoa property with the relative poverty of the area, but so too is the case in Palmar de Ocoa and yet, her family owns a nice villa overlooking the sea while many locals live in poverty within feet of such property.
I said it once and I will say it again!
Nuria is first a television show and then a journalist. And to use Suarezn term, she's also not as 'squeaky clean' as many would like or assume her to be.
In the end, this was a defamation attempt on Alejandrina and only on Alejandrina on the part of Nuria.
As for why? Well, that's what the courts will find out.
-NALs
