Dantas’ Inferno: Did CJ Plagiarize the Folha, or Vice Versa?


Veja‘s Mainardi on Globo’s Jô Xô.

PF indicia Dantas sob acusação de calúnia: The Folha de S. Paulo publishes the same story as Consultor Jurídico on the reported charging of Dantas and Holder with “slander under the [1967] press law.”

The Folha‘s story is bylined to Ándrea Michael of the Brasília bureau. So at least we know who to ask about this issue.

See

Investigação conduzida pela Polícia Federal desde maio de 2006 concluiu nesta semana tratar-se de uma “armação” o conjunto de documentos que apresentam autoridades brasileiras, entre as quais o presidente Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, como donas de vultosas contas bancárias no exterior. Ao fechar o inquérito relacionado ao caso, a PF indiciou sob a acusação de crime de calúnia, enquadrado na Lei de Imprensa, o banqueiro Daniel Dantas, do Opportunity, e o executivo Frank Holder, ex-diretor da Kroll, multinacional que atua na área de investigação.

Neither cites a source for this report.

The two reports are identically worded in large part. Consultor Jurídico ledes with:

Investigação conduzida pela Polícia Federal desde maio de 2006 concluiu nesta semana tratar-se de uma “armação” o conjunto de documentos que apresentam autoridades brasileiras, entre as quais o presidente Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, como donas de vultosas contas bancárias no exterior. Ao fechar o inquérito relacionado ao caso, a PF indiciou sob a acusação de crime de calúnia, enquadrado na Lei de Imprensa, o banqueiro Daniel Dantas, do Opportunity, e o executivo Frank Holder, ex-diretor da Kroll, multinacional que atua na área de investigação.

The two ledes are identically worded. The stories diverge when each writes up its attempts to seek comment. CJ carries a comment from a Dantas attorney, but fails to answer the question: Is it true? Are Dantas attorneys officially aware of the charge?

(Paulo Henrique Amorim reported that he has confirmed this with (anonymous) police sources: That they concluded the dossier was phony and plan to recommend prosecution of Dantas.)

Consultor Jurídico — a publication of the Estado de S. Paulo group — does not cite the Folha as the source of the report, or vice versa.

Its story is not bylined, except as “Consultor Jurídico, December 15, 2007” at the foot of the story.

So who actually wrote this story?

Which is plagiarizing which?

Or are they both plagiarizing the same source?

The technical term for which — plagiarizing the press release — is “cooking.” See

The UOL Ombudsman is shocked! shocked! to discover, for example, that UOL’s technology blog has been plagiarizing TechCrunch!

The question is, though: What is the source of this report, anyway?

Official sources have not confirmed, that I have seen.

(Amorim now reports he has confirmation. From anonymous federal police sources.)

And it is interesting to observe there has been no repercussion from the usual Dantas foes, who normally do not miss a chance to jump up on down on the gentleman’s grave.

(Oh, but Nassif has now commented:

Did anyone call the federal police or the federal prosecutor to try to confirm?

Not that I can see. Not yet. (Amorim now says he did.)

Shit, I have just pulled a Veja: I have passed along a report that does not seem to be very well-founded, as to sourcing.

Oh, well, like Veja, I can claim that I am, after all, not vouching for the veracity of it. I am just translating pra inglês ver.

Unlike Veja, I am not willing to vouch for its plausibility, however.

Not until I know more.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s