As a former resident of Zimbabwe and an African I am increasingly
concerned by a trend I have observed in Forbes and want to bring it to
your attention – in case you are unaware – or else to register my
dissatisfaction with their editorial policy.
Myself and others were upset to see the October 13, 2008 edition carry a
“special advertising section” carried an interview by Paul Trustfull with
Dr. Gideon Gono – Governor of the Reserve Bank, and well known as the
‘personal banker’ of Robert Mugabe. This article was also run at a time
when the US Government had Gono listed on their Treasury OFAC list banning
him from entry to the United States, along with a ban on travelling to the
EU – this did not seem to stop Forbes taking his money.
I was travelling in the Congo on business a couple of weeks ago and learnt
that Forbes intend publishing a piece on George Forrest – an entrepreneur
who the Business & Human Rights Resource Centre amongst others has
profiled – note his munitions factory at a time where conflict has led to
a million casualties in the region. I see that this has now been
published online
(http://www.forbescustom.com/EmergingMarketsPgs/GeorgeForrestInterviewP1.html)
These two articles suggest a trend whereby individuals involved in dubious
activities in Africa can get coverage in Forbes (I assume in return for
substantial money) – what has happened to the ethics policy at Forbes ?
Following the publication of two articles I conducted an investigation to
identify who decides that these kind of articles get into the magazine. I
understand that one of your staff, Mr. Mark Furlong in New York City
handles this activity and that he (with the consent and knowledge of
Forbes ?) appointed Mr. Trustfull as ‘the exclusive ambassador for Forbes
in Africa’.
I want to hear what Forbes have to say and feel sufficiently moved by this
situation to resort to advising human rights and other organizations of
this situation should Forbes not be able to resolve it internally in the
next few days – which they have not done.
Comments
One response to “Congo war history”
Sir,
As a former resident of Zimbabwe and an African I am increasingly
concerned by a trend I have observed in Forbes and want to bring it to
your attention – in case you are unaware – or else to register my
dissatisfaction with their editorial policy.
Myself and others were upset to see the October 13, 2008 edition carry a
“special advertising section” carried an interview by Paul Trustfull with
Dr. Gideon Gono – Governor of the Reserve Bank, and well known as the
‘personal banker’ of Robert Mugabe. This article was also run at a time
when the US Government had Gono listed on their Treasury OFAC list banning
him from entry to the United States, along with a ban on travelling to the
EU – this did not seem to stop Forbes taking his money.
I was travelling in the Congo on business a couple of weeks ago and learnt
that Forbes intend publishing a piece on George Forrest – an entrepreneur
who the Business & Human Rights Resource Centre amongst others has
profiled – note his munitions factory at a time where conflict has led to
a million casualties in the region. I see that this has now been
published online
(http://www.forbescustom.com/EmergingMarketsPgs/GeorgeForrestInterviewP1.html)
These two articles suggest a trend whereby individuals involved in dubious
activities in Africa can get coverage in Forbes (I assume in return for
substantial money) – what has happened to the ethics policy at Forbes ?
Following the publication of two articles I conducted an investigation to
identify who decides that these kind of articles get into the magazine. I
understand that one of your staff, Mr. Mark Furlong in New York City
handles this activity and that he (with the consent and knowledge of
Forbes ?) appointed Mr. Trustfull as ‘the exclusive ambassador for Forbes
in Africa’.
I want to hear what Forbes have to say and feel sufficiently moved by this
situation to resort to advising human rights and other organizations of
this situation should Forbes not be able to resolve it internally in the
next few days – which they have not done.