|
 Veja magazine's (number 1925, October 5, 2005, pp. 78-86) latest cover story, under the general headline "7 reasons to vote no", is a classic of pamphletary journalism, able to convince a few undecided for some time and to confuse others for ever. To begin with: the article is overbearing and reckless. Deliberately biased, it doesn't even try some pro-forma impartiality.
At the start of the debates season on the weapons referendum, with still three upcoming issues before the October plebiscite, instead of attempting an open exchange of ideas capable of raising contradictions and bringing some focus before we cast our ballots, the magazine yells to the reader: "Shut your mouth, you don't know a thing".
In the coming issues it will be pushed to raise the tone, to squeal, trample reason, to appeal to even stronger emotions. At some point of this crusade the reader will realize that he was deceived, that he wasn't given time to think neither was he offered options to exercise his judgement.
It is obvious that the question cooked up by the TSE (National Election Board) was ill chosen and ill formulated (Should the commerce of firearms and ammunition be forbidden in Brazil?). It's also evident that the government's omission vis-a-vis safety - as in other crucial matters dominated by "politically correct" words of command - only favor the "no" to disarmament.
With the exception of José Serra, the São Paulo mayor, and since Monday (October 3) of Rio governor Rosinha Mateus, both favoring the "yes", no authority is willing to debate the matter with their respective communities.
The public power recoiled, the state washes its hands, forgetting that what's being tried is the state itself. It handed over the discussion to the two multiparty parliamentary fronts (which, because of this, do not manage to formulate a common argumentative strategy) and to the NGOs of both camps.
Under the pretext that it doesn't want to influence the vote, the government vanished. It gave up being government. To the "yes" crowd it offers the possibililty of a miracle, to the "no" activists bestows the certainty that there is no other option left to the citizens but to fend off by themselves.
Mediating Role
The vacuum is not in the orbit of the government alone, the parties also get their share of blame. None of them achieved unanimity, they are all divided - what explains the multiparty fronts. The vacuum is being filled initially by a Bonapartism like the one sported by Veja, next it will be a sort of Caesarism by some Severino-type demagogue hidden in a party-trap.
Veja abdicated its capacity for persuading. The publication does not trust itself or does not trust the reader. It prefers the steamroller of the short, frenzied and lavishly illustrated argumentation. That resource used on pages 78-79 is pure propaganda, bears no semblance to journalism. Next to an "innocent" .38 caliber handgun the title proclaims: "The referendum can ban the sale of this gun..."; and it concludes, on the next page: "...but cannot do anything to take this arsenal away from the criminals" - and displays 32 grenades as well as heavy caliber munition bags.
Veja had its bias confirmed, on Monday, during the first round offered on TV by the Election Board, when the cover story published a few days before was exhibited by those favoring "no" as conclusive argument in favor of the pro-gun crowd. It seemed all rehearsed.
In contrast to the electronic media, which is controlled by the Electoral Justice, the printed media - the press - is unregulated, free. Free press does not mean irresponsible press. Monday's (October 3) prime time Jornal Nacional news program and the next day Globo newspaper gave a demonstration on how to argue with competence, and on how is possible to offer the public elements to make a judgement without imposing your own conclusions.
When showing that 61% of the guns seized in Rio in the last six years passed through the hands of people without criminal records, the newspaper offers the referendum voter an element to help him make a decision. It is, in brief, an argument in favor of "yes", but it is, above all, food for thought.
Referendums and plebiscites in countries with inconsistent parties - and as long as administered in proper doses - can increase the level of popular participation and help people make decisions more expeditiously.
Without a press that is lucid, responsible and able to exercise it role of mediator, the "yes" as well as the "no" can become futile exercises, a kind of "heads or tails" to determine the fate of a nation.
Veja Does It Right
With an article of only two columns buried in a little hidden corner of its last issue (number 1925, October 5, 2005, p. 115), weekly newsmagazine Veja entered with a boom the observers' Press Club, an entity that brings together professionals with a missionary calling, anticorporate disposition, propensity for being marginalized and some penchant for self flagellation.
The article entitled "Little Allowance (Mensalinho) of Ellis Daughter" shows how the Warner recording company tried to buy the goodwill of editors and journalists specialized in popular music at the occasion of singer Maria Rita's second album release. It offered them an iPod (whose price varies between 600 and 1,000 reais - US$ 270/US$ 450) and free food.
Rare were those who returned the gift. Most accepted it and responded in kind. As it has repeatedly shown Veja doesn't like press observers, but we notice that this time it felt a special pleasure in registering the different behaviors in face of the generous Warner's treat.
Hopefully the weekly will take some pleasure from it and repeat the experience. The rest of the media will abhor the new vogue of catching red-handed pressmen, the reader will rejoice and the whole of the Brazilian journalism will be elevated to a higher level.
Alberto Dines, the author, is a journalist, founder and researcher at LABJOR - Laboratório de Estudos Avançados em Jornalismo (Laboratory for Advanced Studies in Journalism) at UNICAMP (University of Campinas) and editor of the Observatório da Imprensa. You can reach him by email at obsimp@ig.com.br.
Translated from the Portuguese by Arlindo Silva.
 |
Subscribe to this comment's feed
It licks George Bush's scrotum, praising the Bush Doctrone of preventive attacks even if violating international law, is deliberately pro Israel and anti-palestinian, it hates Lula and Chavez...
I am not at all surprised. Why do most brazilians still bother to read this crap?