"Emily, get out of the way." That was how Colin Powell spoke, while
on the air, to the assistant director for communication of the State Department
who was trying to interrupt the interview that he was giving via satellite
This was exactly what
Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva ought to have said to
Minister So and So or adviser Thus and Suchwho, more royalist than the
king himselfwere trying to add more wood to the fire in the case of
the New York Times. He did the opposite: he went right ahead and expelled
journalist Larry Rohter and gave room for doubt about his commitment to democracy.
Until Tuesday afternoon
(May 11), he was the master of the situation, enveloped by federal solidarity.
By that same night, because of a hasty decision, he had become a punching
bag for Brazilian irritation.
Instead of paying attention
to the expertise of his press secretary and his Minister for Justicewho,
as good professionals were presenting him with solutionshe went instead
to the firebrands who were creating more problems.
Result: relations between
the administration and the press, which could already have been considered
unsatisfactory, became precarious.
Excess of visiblity
This is not a question
of concern only to the government and to the party in power, this is a question
that concerns society as a whole. The press is only the intermediary between
the governors and the governed.
In this mediating position
it was able to identify the weaknesses of the aggressive text signed by the
correspondent of the NYT, as well as capturing the popular sympathy
for the victim of the aggression.
But one day after the
decision to expel the journalist, and surprised by the change in mood on the
part of the media, the President accused the press in a frontal assault of
Thus it became screamingly
obvious that Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, the charismatic labor leader
that after 25 years came to be President of the Republic, had forgotten the
valuable contribution of the media to his biography. Or, if he had not forgotten
it, he wanted a complete and unrestricted rerun. Impossible, at this stage
of the game.
The adjective was buried
in the mountains of foolishness uttered at the time. But it was off-the-cuff,
and thus significant: the press is only well-behaved when it obeys the dictates
of the palace, when it refuses, it is "corporativist". Or, who knows,
a slave to the White House, and the American neo-cons.
It is important to remember
that in the last six months, starting in December 2003 (when reality began
to collide with campaign promises), there have been various bumps, elbows,
fissures between the government and the press, aggravated by the incomprehensible
difficulty in bringing the great communicator that Lula da Silva is within
the reach of the communications media.
The worst of it is that
in moments of acute crisis the government inevitably and openly turns to marketing
tricks, bringing to public attention its principal architect, instead of keeping
it offstage, as the manuals recommend.
Someone needs to warn
President Lula da Silva that journalism and political marketing, in spite
of certain convergences as far as final objectives are concerned, have opposite
functions and actions.
Every marketer likes journalists,
bad or good. But good journalists, in principle, generally are suspicious
when the marketers (or spin doctors) are too present, appearing, like all
doctors, only when there is something seriously wrong.
Still in the ABCs
The gratitude of the victors
in the last presidential elections to those working in political marketing
is understandable, but the excessive presence and overvaluing of these geniuses
puts the eminently political work, which has in the press and in journalism
its principal tool in second place.
In this week full of so
many emotions and libations, the difference between journalists and "image
doctors" became obvious, between those who have their feet on the ground
and those who prefer the high jump.
The division is not a
strict one, because along with the journalists there are jurists and politicians,
and in the group of those who cultivate the image, there are other journalists,
cartoonists, diplomats and generalists (like the Minister Tarso Genro, who
decided to describe the American press as "one of the worst in the world").
The latter put their money
on radicalization, on conspiratorial and apocalyptic theories. They saw in
the wave of solidarity with the President the opportunity to loose the demons
of xenophobia and provoke confrontation. They shot themselves in the foot.
And the government along with them.
Now, in doing an autopsy
on the hangover, it is important to look at the systemic faults that provoked
it. Larry Rohter's article only became so prominent because, after 16 months
of intense training, the Lula administration has still not gotten past the
ABCs of making decisions and communicating them.
It thought that an upgrade
in the name of the former Department of Communication to the pomp of Strategic
Direction would magically open the way to popular recognition.
It ought to have done
like Colin Powell, who in the middle of a satellite interview asked his advisor
Emily to get out of the way. That is the way that meddlers ought to be treated.
Alberto Dines, the author, is a journalist, founder and researcher at LABJORLaboratório
de Estudos Avançados em Jornalismo (Laboratory for Advanced Studies
in Journalism) at UNICAMP (University of Campinas) and editor of the Observatório
da Imprensa. He also writes a column on cultural issues for the Rio
daily Jornal do Brasil. You can reach him by email at email@example.com.
This article was
originally published in Observatório da Imprensa www.observatoriodaimprensa.com.br.
the Portuguese by Tom Moore. Moore has been fascinated by the language and
culture of Brazil since 1994. He translates from Portuguese, Spanish, French,
Italian and German, and is also active as a musician. Comments welcome at