Intervozes Clamor Over Globo Roubo

From intervozes, coletivo brasil de comunicação social, a manifesto on why it is so important not to simply “be the media” in Brazil — because the media here is controlled by the scum of the earth who set the poorest possible example for the would-be “citizen journalist.”

A democracia brasileira foi vítima, na semana que antecedeu o primeiro turno das eleições presidenciais, de um assalto. Em conluio com um delegado federal criminoso, os veículos de mídia O Globo , Folha de S.Paulo, O Estado de S. Paulo, da TV Globo e da Rádio Jovem Pan fraudaram a ética e o compromisso com a verdade – cláusulas pétreas para o exercício do jornalismo – em nome de interesses político-partidários. Para obterem as fotos do dinheiro apreendido com militantes petistas pela Polícia Federal e exibi-las ao público, esse bando midiático mentiu e manipulou sem nenhum escrúpulo.

I translate, as always, in haste:

In the week before the first round of the national elections, the Brazilian public was the victim of an armed robbery. In collusion with a federal policeman who committed a crime, O Globo, the Folha de S. Paulo, the Estado de S. Paulo, and Radio Jovem Pan betrayed their journalistic ethics and their commitment to the truth — rules written in stone for the responsible exercise of journalism — in the name of partisan politics. In order to obtain photos of the “mountain of money,” these journalists lied and distorted the facts without scruple.

Diferentemente do que ocorre, freqüentemente, no ringue de vale-tudo da mídia e do Poder, essa farsa veio à tona.

But unlike most of what so frequently goes on in the mud-wrestling pit of media and power, this farce came to light.

A conversa entre o delegado Edmilson Bruno e os repórteres Paulo Baraldi, Lilian Christofoletti, Tatiana Farah e André Guilherme, em que também são citados os jornalistas César Tralli e Rodrigo Bocardi, foi publicada pelo jornalista Paulo Henrique Amorim em seu blog. A sociedade pôde, então, conhecer o arranha-céu de mentiras publicadas e exibidas pelos maiores veículos de comunicação brasileiros. Num país em que a mídia se encontra acima do bem e do mal, esse é um momento peculiar. O momento de a sociedade reagir.

The conversation between Capt. Edmilson Bruno and the journalists Paulo Baraldi, Lilian Christofoletti, Tatiana Farah and André Guilherme was recorded and published by Paulo Henrique Amorim on his blog. Society is therefore able to ponder the skyscraper of lies published and exhibited by Brazilian media organizations. In a country in which the media believes itself to be “beyond good and evil,” this is a critical moment. A moment for society to react.

A direção do bando midiático sabia que a versão de Bruno para o “roubo” da foto do dinheiro era falsa, mas mesmo assim levou-a ao público. Por quê? Com que motivos? Em nome do interesse público? Com certeza, não.

The bosses of these media racketeers knew full well that Bruno’s version of the “theft” of the photograph of the money was false, and yet they accepted it and published it. Why? For what reason? In the name of the public interest? Certainly not.

Esse bando fez isso para adulterar o resultado eleitoral, influindo de forma premeditada na percepção do cidadão brasileiro.

This cabal did it to manipulate the outcome of the election, intentionally seeking to influence the perceptions of Brazilian citizens.

O momento é grave. Um dos mais sombrios da nossa história contemporânea. Devemos repudiar o ocorrido. Não nos submeter à escuridão. Possuímos pequeno arsenal para enfrentar o imenso poder dos conglomerados monopolistas, mas devemos exigir a devida punição dos protagonistas dessa tragédia. É chegada a hora de discutir-se abertamente a importância do controle social dos meios de comunicação.

This is a very serious moment. One of the darkest in our modern history. Let us not resign ourselves to the darkness. We have a small arsenal at our disposition with which to confront the media conglomerates, but we must demand the just punishment of the protagonists of this tragedy. The time has come to openly debate the importance of social control of the mass media.

Empresas de comunicação e jornalistas prestam um serviço público. A comunicação não é uma moeda, não é um negócio. É um direito do cidadão. Compreendido isso, torna-se claro que a manipulação é um crime.

News organizations and journalists render a public service. Mass communications are not a form of currency, and they are not a business. They are a basic right of the citizen. Once we understand this, it is clear that manipulation of public information is a crime.

Não se pode aceitar que crimes sejam cometidos por aqueles que passaram a empunhar a bandeira da liberdade de imprensa apenas para se perpetuar no comando da sociedade. Liberdade de Imprensa não autoriza empresas a fazerem o que bem entendem com o país em que vivemos; não é liberdade de empresa. Os movimentos sociais e as organizações não podem deixar que isso ocorra. É preciso haver instrumentos que garantam que a verdade prevaleça, preservando a liberdade de informar e ser informado, mas impedindo que essa liberdade seja utilizada para manter fatos relevantes na sombra.

It is unacceptable for such crimes to be committed by those who wave the banner of “freedom of the press” only in order to maintain their own control over society. The freedom of the press does not authorize the media to do whatever they want with a nation that belongs to all of us. That is not freedom of the press. The social movements and organizations cannot let this happen. We need mechanisms that will guarantee that the truth will prevail, protecting the right to inform and be informed and preventing relevant facts from being concealed.

Nós, do Coletivo Intervozes, convidamos a sociedade organizada a se somar a esse movimento de denúncia. A Federação Nacional dos Jornalistas (Fenaj) e a Associação Brasileira de Imprensa (ABI) precisam assumir uma clara postura de condenação do ocorrido. As autoridades competentes, os poderes Executivo, Legislativo e Judiciário, precisam reagir com responsabilidade.

We at the Intervozes Collective invite organized civil society to join us in this denunciation. The National Federation of Journalists (Fenaj) and the Brazilian Press Association (ABI) need to take an unambiguous position condemning what has occurred here. The competent authorities in the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches need to respond in a responsible manner.

Porque está em jogo o próprio futuro da democracia brasileira.

Because the future of Brazilian democracy is at stake.

Yeah, good luck getting that fine, upstanding judiciary of yours to do the right thing, my Brazilian friends.

On the other side of the debate, of course, you are hearing a very familiar argument: “Self-regulation is the most effective regulation.”

But it is pretty obvious that self-regulation has not worked here, right?

Or is it?

If citizen press-watchers can prevail in this controversy — if it can demonstrate sufficient power to bring these scum to heel — then perhaps we libertarians might say that the free market of ideas has functioned properly, and that society itself provides an adequate check on the media.

But these bastards have decades’ worth of mistrust to win back, I can tell you that.

On the other hand, as Ali Kemal continues to insist, the circulation and ratings of these outlets suggest that the public must think very highly of the job they are doing, right?

Nice application of pretzel logic, that: We six family-controlled — don’t fool yourself that Editora Abril is answerable to its shareholders in the sense you understand it back there in Gringoland — media monopolies are the only thing going, so if people watch us, then the free marketplace of ideas has functioned properly and validated the quality of our reporting.

I, for one, spit on such cheap casuistics.

Still for me to write about: The counterargument that the Lula government abuses its own “power of the press,” to which the corporate media provides a necessary counterweight.

It is true that all the branches of the Brazilian government have their own social communications operations — TV Senate, TV Congress, Radiobras for the executive, even the election tribunal — therein lies a crazy tale — and so on.

Which I watch with great interest, as a longtime C-SPAN junky needing a fix not adequately provided by the streams from home.

And it is true that in our law there are provisions limiting the ability of the executive, for example, from issuing “propaganda” for itself, in the negative sense.

So I watch a lot of NBR, the executive broadcasting channel, and am studying up on the governance of that process.

It’s actually pretty interesting, a lot of contribution from the MinC, lots of documentaries on crazy old folk musicians living out in the Cu do Judas and composing astonishing ballads on the life and times of Lampião and Padre Cicero, that sort of thing.

On TV Senado the other day, an hourlong conversation, with performance, by the son of the immortal Baden Powell that fairly blew my mind. The kid is the Jimi Hendrix of traditional Brazilian music.

That version of Monk’s “Round About Midnight”? Wow.

But I really don’t see any abuses of the system in NBR’s case — nor do I see self-styled media monitors pointing out any misgovernance under the institutional framework that exists.

Perhaps you could argue that the institutional framework needs reforming. I would be interested to hear that argument, and even inclined to sympathize with it.

But that’s another question entirely.
The other day, for example, I watched a signing ceremony with Lula, granting title over a failed sugar factory and its lands to a collective of ex-employees who squatted the factory, kept it in operation, and made a successful commercial go of it. Now they will be able to apply for development loans to help the firm expand.

People got hurt in the process. You know: masked gunmen (capangas), the cops are stumped, the usual.

This was standard C-SPAN-type programming, really, except, of course, that C-SPAN is more structurally independent of the institutions it covers.

I mean, hey, I watched all the rah-rah speeches on the coverage of the GOPAC convention last year, right? And the Daily Kos convention to boot, right?

And senators get plenty of TV time of their own, just like on C-SPAN, to flap their gums live in prime time.

So my preliminary conclusion, with those caveats, is that that dog just won’t hunt.

Still: What are the institutional guarantees of journalistic independence for those government channels?

Are they as secure, for example, as the guarantees given to the VOA used to be (but no longer are, one reads, under the Bush Plan for the Banana Republicanization of the USA)?