Would you like to receive this column's texts first-hand in your email? Subscribe to the Pública Newsletter, sent every Friday at 8 am. To receive the next editions,sign up here.
Imagine for a minute that instead of a far-right candidate, there was a radical left candidate running against any other moderate. How would theelection coveragelook? Would there be a false balance between the two forces, as has been the case since the Bolsonaros started running for the presidency of Brazil?
The answer is obvious and the question a provocation to think about the sham that is the impartiality of the press since the rise of the far right post-redemocratization. Especially in these elections, when the alliance between the Bolsonaros and the far right in the United States is already interfering in our sovereignty, even in our own elections.
Nor did the press fulfill its role of rigorously informing what the political projects in dispute in the country are.Using the argument of "polarization," it presented, and continues to present, the center-left of Lula as the inverse pole and, therefore, equivalent to the far-right of Flávio Bolsonaro - a journalistic error that skews the entire campaign coverage.
The left moved towards the center while the right shifted to the extreme end, this is the hidden fact beneath the supposed "polarization" of voters.The third way, so desired by the press, is on the Lula-Alckmin ticket as we've known since 2022. In simple terms, in the style of social media, Lula is not a communist, but Flávio is a fascist, and the press could have made that difference clear to the population.
With the shield of alleged exemption and the false equivalence as a method, the press circumvented the most important topic of the national elections, the first after an attempted coup d'état, when the country finally managed to condemn the president and generals who conspired against our hard-won democracy. And now, sovereignty is threatened by the United States of Donald Trump.Marco Rubio.
I am not blaming newspapers and radio and TV stations, owned by wealthy families, for not being progressive, as indeed the overwhelming majority of journalists who work for them are, but thatAt least honor the place you hold among Brazil's democratic institutions.. Just as there is no democracy without a free press, there is no free press without democracy.
Not even the risk to press and expression freedom, which should be an unnegotiable value for newspapers, TV and radio stations, caused them to clearly expose the real and already attempted possibility of Flávio Bolsonaro tearing apart the Constitution.
Monitoring and investigating crucial issues in these elections, such as the Bolsonaro lobby within the Trump administration, the Dark Horse hoax, the dominance of Flávio's political allies in the Master Case and other cases involving organized crime, US interference, and Big Techs, fell to smaller, independent news outlets run by journalists.
The media also failed to alert citizens about what Flávio Bolsonaro's election would take away from Brazilians, affecting us all (excluding the 1% richest who earn 31.6 times more than the poorest half of the population).The top 1% earn 31.6 times more than the poorest half of the population.While demanding debates about "proposals" from candidates and voters and reporting scandals based on selective leaks, it allowed Flávio to avoid giving explanations regarding the Vorcaro case, and also failed to clearly position himself on issues directly affecting individual and collective rights, such as indigenous and quilombola land demarcation, or policies for gender equality and protection of LGBTQIA+ rights – absent from his government program and even more relevant given the suffering imposed on transgender people by the Donald Trump administration, which the Bolsonaros openly admire. Not to mention journalists, scientists, artists, and teachers persecuted under both Jair Bolsonaro and Donald Trump's governments.
There was no attempt to listen to or highlight the voices of real people, with prominent reports about communities that would be further threatened by mining and other crimes, or families with a transgender child facing violence, or those who have escaped poverty and fear falling back into it, or teenagers relying on scholarships and social programs to stay in school and now lack a guaranteed future – even more threatened with the end of anti-racism and gender equality policies.
Reduced to electoral initiatives – even if criticism is also warranted – they did not contribute to the debate about the merits of policies like ending the 6x1 workweek (an initiative from society), banning bets, and increasing the Bolsa Família program. They also did not pressure Flávio to clarify what will happen to measures of clear public interest, which should be defended as citizens' rights and are already under fire, not only by Flávio himself, but by his political allies – including the "market" – for fear of losing votes.
These and other examples are now being shared on social media in the wave of awareness among citizens about the imbalance in proposals and the possibility of avoiding the anti-constitutional tsunami that would be a Bolsonaro-Trump alliance, through convincing less radical, apathetic, or absent voters. They are not wrong. Although the first Datafolha poll shows Flávio four points ahead of Lula, I do not underestimate the power of "ant-colony" efforts in electoral campaigns. We'll see.
These and other examples are now exposed on social media in the wave of awareness among conscious citizens about the imbalance in proposals and the chance to avoid the anti-constitutional tsunami that would be the Bolsonaro-Trump alliance, by convincing less radical, apathetic, or absent voters. They are not mistaken. Even though the first Datafolha poll shows Flávio four points ahead of Lula, I do not underestimate the power of grassroots efforts in electoral campaigns. We'll see.
Long live combative journalists, independent media, and above all, Brazilians who still seek dialogue as a tool to maintain and enhance democracy and ensure freedom and the rights of all citizens.