“The Authoritarian Temptation: The PT’s attempts to monitor and control the press, television and culture.” Translation: “Shitfire, Dilma could decide those zero-down spectrum concessions we got were the fruit of crooked dealings! Get rid of her, I don’t care how!”
[Globo’s claims] are not true. The order does not oblige the broadcasters to submit their programs to the Ministry of Justice before putting them on the air. … And the Ministry of Justice has no means of punishing the broadcasters [for violations], and therefore cannot “oblige” them. That is the province of the federal public prosecutor, and has nothing to do with the ratings system.
Globo critica nova portaria do Ministério da Justiça: The Estado de S. Paulo‘s Cristina Padiglione fact-checks a self-serving segment on the Globo TV network’s flagship Sunday-night infotainment magazine, Fantástico.
The show reported non-existent facts about revisions to Brazil’s ratings system for open-broadcast television content, Ms. Padiglione writes.
Globo, like the Grupo Abril, has a propensity for reporting self-serving, ahem, non-existent facts.
It is not unique in this regard among banana-republican media conglomerates. See
Sob o pretexto de uma matéria sobre os idos da censura, emissora alegou, no Fantástico, que decisão do Ministério da Justiça fere ‘liberdade de expressão’
On the pretext of airing a report on censorship in Brazil, the network alleges on Fantástico that a decision by the Ministry of Justice impinges on “freedom of expression.”
You can set your watch by the willingness of these people to scream “political persecution!” when they feel their business interests are being crossed — and to use their million-watt microphone to do it.
SÃO PAULO – Sob o pretexto de uma matéria sobre os idos da censura, a Globo mencionou, na edição de domingo, 6, do Fantástico, a Portaria 264 do Ministério da Justiça, que reajusta os termos da classificação indicativa de TV a partir da próxima segunda-feira. A primeira informação era de que a portaria permitira às emissoras a “autoclassificação”, tornando-as responsáveis pelo que vai ao ar e a que horas vai.
Using the pretext of a report on censorship in Brazil, Globo, on the Sunday, March 6 edition of Fantástico, mentioned Regulation No. 264 from the Ministry of Justice, which adjusts the terms of the television content ratings system effective next Monday. The first thing they reported was that the order would allow broadcasters to “self-classify” their programming, making them responsible for deciding what would go on the air and at what time.
Pouco depois, Zeca Camargo volta ao tema para fazer a emenda ao soneto: “Uma retificação: (…) Na verdade a portaria 264 (…), além de impor horários para a exibição dos programas, o que contraraia a liberdade de expressão prevista na Constituição, admite que as emissoras poderão sugerir essa classificação. No entanto, pela portaria, o ministério não precisa aceitar a classificação das emissoras e pode obrigá-las a submeter os programas a análises antes de sua exibição, ou seja, condiciona a exibição dos programas à licença do ministério, o que também é proibido pela Constituição”.
Shortly thereafter, host Zeca Camargo returns to the topic … : “A correction … In fact, Regulation No. 264, … besides imposing time limitations on the exhibition of programs, which would violate Constitutional protections for freedom of speech, admits that broadcasters themselves may suggest this classification. However, according to the terms of the order, the Ministryof Justice need not accept the classification produced by the broadcasters and can oblige them to submit their programming for analysis before airing it. That is to say, it conditions the exhibition of the programs on permission from the Ministry of Justice, which is also unconstitutional.”
Amazing, isn’t it? The Marinho family — whose preference for the neo-UDN stylings of the Coalition for a Decent Brazil candidate in the last election was not exactly a well-kept secret — demanding the right to broadcast George Carlin’s list of seven words you cannot say on TV during the time slot formerly occupied by Xuxa.
Não é bem assim. A portaria não obriga as emissoras a submeter seus programas ao MJ antes de levá-los ao ar. Faz sete anos que as emissoras devem algum respeito à exibição de seus programas de acordo com horário e faixa etária. Isso praticamente não muda, mas o que apavora os radiodifusores agora é a necessidade de se respeitar fuso horário: novela das 21 horas não pode mais ir ao ar às 19h no Acre. E o MJ não tem recursos para punir, portanto não “obriga”. Isso cabe ao Ministério Público e independe de classificação indicativa.
But this is just not true. The order does not oblige the broadcasters to submit their programs to the Ministry of Justice before putting them on the air.
For seven years now broadcasters have owed some respect for the hour and the age demographic of viewers in presenting their programs. This remains practically unchanged, but what upsets broadcasters now is the need to respect time-zone differences: The 9 o’clock soap opera can no longer go on the air at 7 p.m. in Acre [way out west, on the Bolivian border].
Moreover, the Ministry of Justice has no means of punishing the broadcasters [for violations], and therefore cannot “oblige” them. That is the province of the federal prosecutor, and has nothing to do with the ratings system.
Nesta segunda, emissário do MJ teve audiência com o ministro João Otávio de Noronha, do STJ, para derrubar o mandado de segurança que ele concedeu à Associação Brasileira das Emissoras de TV, extinguindo as emissoras da responsabilidade de adequar conteúdos a horários.
This Monday, a representative of the Ministry of Justice had a meeting with Justice de Noronha of the Supreme Court about withdrawing the injunction he granted the Brazilian Association of TV Broadcasters, relieving them of responsibility for ensuring that content is suitable for different time slots.
I have no really strong feelings about the issue myself. Janet Jackson’s titty did not not bother me at all, but the fine levied for displaying it did not get my panties in a huge bunch, either.
Personally, when I want to see titties, I just ask my wife.
Personally, I am all for letting people dream up and market whatever the hell they want. If I do not like it (Fox News and CNN) I do not watch it.
When it comes to the public airwaves, however, I guess common standards of decency have got to be negotiated — as arduous as that can get, but hey, that’s democracy — whereas on private networks, what the hell: anything goes.
Viewers should be able to lock out channels if they want to and otherwise have maximum control over what they choose to see without exercising control over what I choose to see.
Snuff films and child pornography are out because awful crimes have to be committed in producing them.
None of this seems especially complicated to me.
I am also all for helping other people rate that content for suitability — child-friendliness, say, or cleanliness or godliness or what have you — and communicate it to others, so as not to be exposed to content that might offend them.
You can cuss like a mafia loan shark on your show as far as I am concerned. But I would not want to force someone who is offended by that kind of language to listen to it, just for my sake.
Our neighbors here in São Paulo, for example, are strait-laced, Lula hating evangelicals of some sort.
They are also gente fina. We are very fond of them, and would not want to offend them. When we chat over the back fence, I keep my porras and puta que o parius in check.
It is my legal right to say porra and puta que o pariu if I want to, whenever I want to, sure. But I simply do not want to, for reasons of moral conviction.
Because I actually agree with our holy-roller neighbors on one point: You should try to love your neighbor, por mais chatos que sejam. Tough to live up to in real life, but it makes for good spiritual exercise.
So fine: Keep the nudie magazines behind the counter, off the public rack. As long as I can still buy them, my rights as a nudie magazine lover are not infringed upon.
I do have strong feelings about the quality of Globo journalism, however.
Especially when it misreports on an issue in which it quite clearly has a vested interest.
Which it very often does.
Globo continues to have serious credibility problems as a champion of free speech and democracy.
And the horse Bonner rode in on.
Roberto Marinho: The rotten apple has not fallen far from the tree.