Author: La Tabla/Data Journalism Platform 19 JAN 2026
A comprehensive analysis of the exclusive Reuters report revealing alleged conversations between the United States government and Venezuelan Minister Diosdado Cabello highlights two structural flaws that undermine the credibility of the published information: reliance on an unverifiable anonymous source and a significant logical contradiction within the narrative presented.
These elements raise serious questions about the journalistic rigor of the piece, especially in light of a categorical denial from the Venezuelan government.
The information is solely based on references to “people familiar with the matter” and “sources” (described as “two or four sources”) whose identities, qualifications, and connections remain entirely opaque.
The journalistic standard accepts anonymity to protect informants but requires providing the reader with contextual elements that allow them to gauge the credibility of the source, its possible access to the information, and its motives. In this instance, the total absence of these descriptors—such as specific positions within government structures, histories of accuracy, or potential agendas—hinders any external auditing or verification by third parties.
The story thus turns into an unverifiable assertion, relying on faceless voices lacking context, making it extraordinarily weak against the official denial from Miraflores, which dismissed the report as “false” and part of a “psychological warfare laboratory.”
The second flaw lies in a fundamental internal contradiction in the logic of the narrative. On one hand, the report presents Cabello as a necessary interlocutor for the “stabilization” of the country, with whom the U.S. administration would maintain operational dialogues. On the other hand, it notes that Cabello is a publicly charged individual by the U.S. Department of Justice, accused of drug trafficking, with a $25 million reward on his head.
The text fails to clarify how this dual condition of “partner for stability” and “wanted international criminal” can be reconciled, an incoherence that challenges state reasoning and was even noted by politicians in Washington, who question why he hasn’t been captured.
These central weaknesses are compounded by other factors that detract from precision, such as vague timelines (“months before,” “first days”) and the admission within the text that key aspects—like the specific content of the conversations or Cabello’s reaction—”are not clear.”
This framework of ambiguity contrasts sharply with the emphatic nature of the initial assertions. The report thus, more than revealing a verifiable fact, installs a speculative narrative based on an opaque source filled with practical contradictions, without providing the necessary journalistic mechanisms for the public to assess its validity against a formal denial. The burden of proof, in this case, remains unfulfilled.