World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article

Partido da Imprensa Golpista

Article Id: WHEBN0025812410
Reproduction Date:

Title: Partido da Imprensa Golpista  
Author: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Language: English
Subject: Concentration of media ownership, Beyond Citizen Kane, Chojoongdong
Collection:
Publisher: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Publication
Date:
 

Partido da Imprensa Golpista

Partido da Imprensa Golpista (PIG, English: Pro-coup Press Party) is a term which became [1][2][3] used among left-wing Brazilian websurfers since 2007 to characterize an alleged attitude of the Brazilian mass media towards President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva during the 2006 presidential election. The term was popularized by journalist Paulo Henrique Amorim in his blog.[4] Whenever he uses the term, Amorim writes it with an "i" in lowercase as a pun with the name of the web portal where he was an articulist, before being abruptly dismissed on March 18, 2008, in an action which he describes as a process of "ideological cleansing".[5][6]

The term is also constantly used by journalists Luiz Carlos Azenha and Rodrigo Vianna on their blogs, which also helped to spread its popularity.[7][8][9][10] However, the term gained wider notoriety when it was first used in the Brazilian Congress on a speech by Pernambuco Congressman Fernando Ferro, a member of the Workers' Party.[11][12] He ironically suggested that film director and Rede Globo commentator Arnaldo Jabor should run for "President of the PIG".[13]

Definition

Paulo Henrique Amorim's own explanation for the meaning of the expression appears whenever he mentions it in his articles. According to him, "In no serious democracy in the world, conservative, low-quality and even sensationalistic newspapers, and one single television network matter as much as they do in Brazil. They have become a political party – the PiG, Pro-coup Press Party".[14]

Amorim argues that even some politicians have become part of the PiG. He argues that "the political parties are no longer an instrument of the coup but they have become the coup itself. Pretending [to do] objective journalism, they not only do the job of a press that omits information; but do the job of a press that lies, distorts and deceits. Former President FHC was among the first politicians who realized that the political strength he needed could be found in the PIG, and thus nowadays he enjoys the image of being a prominent world leader".[15]

Historical background

Paulo Henrique maintains that the mainstream Brazilian press historically defends coup d'états whenever the Brazilian President is not elected from among members of the ruling elites. The PIG, according to Amorim, had its origin with Carlos Lacerda, whom he says "helped to kill Getúlio Vargas". It continued its "struggle against democracy" throughout the governments of Juscelino Kubitscheck and João Goulart, when finally "it openly defended and promoted the Brazilian military putsch of March 1964". According to him, the mass media also "hammered Rio's governor Brizola throughout his two terms in office, and now conspires against Lula".[15]

Political scientist Wanderley Guilherme dos Santos, which had predicted the overthrow of President João Goulart in 1964, argued in an interview given to CartaCapital in 2005 that the "mainstream media led Vargas to commit suicide based on nothing; it almost prevented Juscelino from taking office based on nothing; it led to Jânio resignation, taking advantage of his craziness, based on nothing; it tried to prevent Goulart's inauguration based on nothing".[16]

Inconsistencies of the term creator

Although Paulo Henrique Amorim, the creator of the term, and one of its largest broadcasters, behave as contrary to the Brazilian press, he has worked for many of these agencies, and attacked leftist politicians accused of corruption, politicians to whom he now defends. Amorim has also been sued for racism.

In September 1998, at the eve of the dispute between Lula (Brazilian left candidate, from PT party) and FHC (seen as the right candidate, but with center-left trend, from PSDB party), Paulo Henrique Amorim on TV Bandeirantes led a crusade against Lula with the basest arguments. Wished to withdraw the financial transaction that allowed the union leader Lula buying an apartment in São Bernardo do Campo. In an ongoing battle, long, persistent in all editions of the main news program of Bandeirantes, Amorim attacked Lula.[17][18]

Lula sued Paulo Henrique Amorim and TV Bandeirantes, who apologized to PT publicly. When the PT was opposition, Paulo Henrique Amorim attacked Lula. However, after the PT become government, Paulo Henrique Amorim became his staunch supporter.[17][18]

About the resignation of the IG portal, the site has a page that informs simply discontinued the contract with the journalist :

"Over time, contract costs and market conditions made ​​it impossible to maintain it. Taking the decision , all termination conditions are met and the journalist properly indemnified . Employees of the blog "Conversa Afiada" blog, present at the headquarters of IG at the time it was dispatched the notice of termination, and the site removed from the network, were given the opportunity to take away the materials needed, but they did not. Paulo Henrique Amorim preferred to act under the force of a warrant of search and seizure to remove their belongings and copy the file from his site, what he could have done without judicial review. Discontinue collaboration is part of corporate life and the lives of journalists . Paulo Henrique has gone through companies such as Editora Abril, Jornal do Brasil, TV Globo, TV Bandeirantes, TV Cultura and TV UOL " - all supposedly part of the "party media coup".[19]

In 2012, Amorim was ordered to pay compensation of R$ 30,000 to journalist Heraldo Pereira(Globo), having stated on his blog that Pereira was a "black with white soul," which was considered a manifestation of racism, at a session held in Justice Court of the Federal District.[20][21]

Role of the internet

According to writer Fernando Soares Campos, "without the internet, Lula would have hardly been elected; if he had, he would not take office; if he had taken office, he would have been ousted with ease". He argues that "the PIG is strong, is Goliath, but the internet is filled with Davids". Campos says that the mere existence of the internet interferes with the monopoly of information by large media groups, and this interference hampers coups.[22]

"Members"

According to Paulo Henrique Amorim, only three Brazilian families control the whole of the mainstream Brazilian media: the Marinhos (Roberto Marinho, Organizações Globo), the Mesquitas (Julio de Mesquita, Grupo Estado) and the Frias (Octávio Frias, Grupo Folha). According to Amorim, they dominate and condition news in Brazil, through their various newspapers, radio stations, news agencies and internet blogs. They have provoked what Amorim calls "a massacre" of the smaller Brazilian regional press, as a consequence of the control they exert on all of the mainstream information, in order to manipulate the Brazilian public opinion.[15]

Professor Sérgio Mattos, writing in 2005 on the media control and censorship (in Brazil and the world), also cited the influence of these tycoons, adding, however, two other groups (one of which, the Sirotsky, represent a "monopoly in cross," explained further below):

Mattos's work, however, precedes the creation of the word "PIG" and although talk about the manipulation of information by the media, is much more a warning about the dangers of state control (open or hidden) over the press, warning which was hailed as "very useful" in the book review done by the newspaper Folha de S. Paulo in 2006.[23]

In May 2013, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Brazil, Joaquim Barbosa, in a speech in Costa Rica during the World Press Freedom Day, recognized not only that there is a lack of political and ideological diversity in the Brazilian press, but also identified a right-wing bias in that group:

Concentration of the media in Brazil

The concentration of media ownership is a global trend; in Brazil, however, seems to have manifested itself very early. In this regard, Dr. Venício A. de Lima noted in 2003:

Lima also points to other factors that would make even easier the process of media concentration, particularly with regard to broadcasting: the failure of legal norms that limit the equity interest of the same economic group in various broadcasting organizations; a short period (five years) for resell broadcasting concessions, facilitating the concentration by the big media groups through the purchase of independent stations, and no restrictions to the formation of national broadcasting networks. He cites eloquent examples of horizontal, vertical, crossed and "in cross" concentration (a Brazilian peculiarity).[24]

a) Horizontal concentration: oligopoly or monopoly produced within an area or industry; television (pay or free) is the Brazilian classical model. In 2002 the cable networks Sky and NET dominated 61% of the Brazilian market. In the same year, 58.37% of all advertising budgets were invested in TV - and in this aspect, TV Globo and its affiliates received 78% of the amount;[25]
b) Vertical concentration: integration of the different phases of production and distribution, eliminating the work of others (independent producers). In Brazil, unlike the United States, it is common for a TV network to produce, advertise, market and distribute most of its programming. The aforementioned TV Globo is known for its soap operas exported to dozens of countries around the world; it keeps under permanent contract the actors, authors, and the whole production staff. The final product is broadcast by a network of newspapers, magazines, radio stations and websites owned by Globo Organizations.[26]
c) Cross ownership: ownership of different kinds of media (TV, newspapers, magazines, etc.) by the same group. Initially, the phenomenon occurred in broadcasting (radio and television) and print media (newspapers and magazines), with emphasis on the group of "Diários Associados." At a later stage appeared the RBS Group (affiliated to TV Globo), with operations in the markets of Rio Grande do Sul and Santa Catarina. Besides being the owner of radio stations (AM and FM) and TV (free and paid), and of the main local newspapers, has two Internet portals. The opinion of its commentators is thus replicated by a multimedia system that makes extremely easy to spread the point of view (on any subject) advocated by the group;[27][28]
d) Monopoly "in cross": reproduction into local level, of the particularities of cross ownership. Research carried out in the early 1990s, detected the presence of this singularity in 18 of the 26 Brazilian states.[29] Manifests itself, almost always, a) by the presence of a TV channel with great audience, often linked to TV Globo and b) the existence of two daily newspapers, in which the one with the largest circulation, is linked to the major TV channel and to a network of AM and FM radio stations, that almost always reproduces articles and the editorial line of the newspaper "O Globo".[30] In 2002, another survey (which did not include the pay TV), found the presence of the "monopoly in cross" in 13 major markets in Brazil.[31]

Even the UNESCO office in Brasilia has expressed its concern over the existence of an outdated code of telecommunications (1962),[32] which no longer meets the expectations generated by the Brazilian Constitution of 1988 in the political and social fields, and the inability of the Brazilian government to establish an independent regulatory agency to manage the media.[33]

Attempts in this direction have been pointed by the mainstream media as attacks on freedom of expression, the trend of the political left in the entire Latin American continent.[34][35][36][37]

Press Censorship in Brazil

In 2010, there were already complaints about the growth of press censorship in Brazil, via the Judiciary. "The Brazilian electoral legislation is favoring censorship into the journalism practice", was the assessment of the experts who participated in the panel " Freedom of Speech and democratic state " during a democracy forum in the São Paulo city .[38]

Participated in the discussion journalist and columnist of the "Veja" magazine, Reinaldo Azevedo, the famous TV's comedian 's from Casseta & Planeta, Marcelo Madureira, and professor of ethics and political philosophy Roberto Romano.[38]

Reinaldo Azevedo said that the legislation affect mainly the internet and television . "Television , especially , is obliged to give the same space to people who has something to tell, and who hasn't nothing to say."[38]

In the Romano evaluating, court decisions also undermine freedom of expression. "There is a movement not only in Brazil, but internationally, to control the power of the state, through the Judiciary" . Romano cited a case of censorship to the newspaper "O Estado de S. Paulo" as an example .[38]

The comedian Marcelo Madureira said mostly the mood is extremely hurt with the Brazilian electoral legislation, which currently prohibits comedians to make jokes about politicians, legislation that was created in the leftist PT government .[38]

Letf-Wing Censorship in Latin America, and Communist Propaganda

Although the Paulo Henrique Amorim theory (and left-people that supports the idea of ​​"Partido da Imprensa Golpista") spread that the press wants to control the people, the attitudes of the left, in retaliation for the alleged authoritarianism of the right, is another authoritarianism: as leftist governments achieve power in Latin America, there is a growing state censorship and even killings of journalists, setting a real threat to freedom of expression and in Latin America.[39] "Partido da Imprensa Golpista" can be considered a type of Bolivarian Propaganda to make people hate the left oppositors.

Threats of rulers of the region to the media staged debates of the 69th General Assembly of the SIP held until Tuesday in Denver, in the United States . "The Latin American governments have dedicated themselves to sow hatred and fear - said IAPA president Jaime Mantilla, by presenting a study of the restrictions on the press in Latin America." Mantilla directs the "Diario Hoy", of Ecuador, which in June approved a controversial law regulating the media just branded by media organizations and human rights activists of "gag law" . The initiative allows the government to monitor the publication of news and punish media.[39]

- This is a direct government interference in news content, as he decides who can practice the profession and who can own a medium - denounced Solines Juan Carlos, former president of the National Council of Telecommunications of Ecuador .[39]

One of the most controversial reports is on Venezuela, where journalists highlighted an increase in the number of lawsuits against anti-government media Chavista . A week ago, President Nicolás Maduro created a state agency to control the publication of news . He already had encouraged before the punishment of journalists and media that addressed the shortage of products, recurring problem in Venezuela . Reporters also criticized the sales channel Globovision, one of the few remaining critical of the government, businessmen linked to Chavez .[39]

- There is a demolition plan to sustain democracies messianic leaders who want to perpetuate themselves in power - warned Claudio Paolillo, President of the Committee on Freedom of the Press and Information of the SIP and magazine journalist Uruguayan " Advanced " .[39]

According to the BBC, US politicians have said TeleSUR is a propaganda tool for Chávez.[40][41] Villa del Cine, a state-owned film and television studio started in 2006, has also been criticized as a "propaganda factory", according to Nichols and Morse[42] and independent film makers.[43] Chávez said that Villa del Cine would help break the "dictatorship of Hollywood".[43]

The Chávez government has been accused by Human Rights Watch of abusing its control over broadcasting frequencies, where they can punish radio and television stations that are thought to broadcast anti-Chavista programming.[44] A new media law promotes self-censorship within most of the opposition media. Through the use of propaganda, Chavez has continually verbalized his successes on television which has resulted in a large popular base of support.[45]

According to Michael Kraft, writing in the Charlotte Conservative, Bolivarian propaganda has been disseminated in Venezuela and abroad.[46][47] The state is in charge of all public television stations and public radio stations, including Radio Nacional de Venezuela the only radio station with full national coverage.[46] According to the Associated Press, opposition candidate María Corina Machado "complained about what she called a government-orchestrated propaganda machine that churns out spots ridiculing Chavez's critics, runs talk shows dominated by ruling party hopefuls and picks up all of the president's speeches".[48]

In 1999, Chávez began to promote his revolution through print media, mostly in local newspapers like Barreto’s Correo del Presidente, focusing the messages on the transformation of Venezuela into a first world nation within ten years.[49] He used cadenas (obligatory televised transmission, often taking over regular programming for hours) that became an effective weapon to fight criticism by running continuously to all audiences both in urban and rural sections of Venezuela. In 2001, he transformed Aló Presidente from a radio show to a full-fledged live, unscripted, television show running all hours of the day promoting the Bolivarian Revolution, blaming the Venezuelan economic problems on its northern neighbor, the United States as a "mass-market soapbox for the policies and musings" of Chávez, who the Boston Globe described as "a media savvy, forward-thinking propagandist [who] has the oil wealth to influence public opinion".[50] The show airs every Sunday, depicts Chavez (wearing red, the color of the revolution) as the charismatic leader, passionate about the well being of his country.[46] Many Venezuelan's tune in because Mr. Chavez is known for unveiling new financial assistance packages every weekend.[51] Since 1999, President Chavez has spent an average 40 hours a week on television promoting his "Bolivarian Revolution".[52]

In 2005, the new Law of Social Responsibility modified the penal code to simplify ways people could sue for opinions emitted against them, resulting in limits on political talk shows and self-censorship of the press (Law of Social Responsibility 2005).[53] Privately owned RCTV was closed in 2007 when thee administration did not renew their broadcasting license.[54] Globovisión, the last television channel to avoid government criticism, faced a $2.1 million fine on October 2011 for an alleged violation of the broadcasting statute.[44] As of 2012, the state controls the majority of media sources within the country, inundating audiences with pro-Chávez, pro-"Bolivarian Revolutionary" ideals throughout the urban and rural areas.[46] Pro-Chávista ideals infiltrate radio stations, local and cable television channels, newspapers, the internet, and public buildings (with murals).

Bolivarian propaganda uses emotional arguments to gain attention, exploit the fears (either real or imagined) of the population, create external enemies for scapegoat purposes, and produce nationalism within the population, causing feelings of betrayal for support of the opposition.[55] The images and messages promote ideological mobilization,[56] including Chávez as a "liberator", the positive effects of the Bolivarian Revolution (including social reforms), and power deriving from the people.[57] The overall goal of the Bolivarian propaganda machine is to reflect society's wants and goals for an improved Venezuela.[56]

The Bolivarian Revolution is advertised through all outlets: TV, radio, Internet (with websites like the Venezuelan Solidarity Campaign), magazines (like Viva Venezuela), newspapers, murals, billboards, memorabilia (action figures, t-shirts, posters), schools (through the lesson plans and books),[58] movies, symphonies (Orquesta Sinfónica Simón Bolívar), festivals, and public service vehicles (like buses and ambulances).[57] The face of Chávez is everywhere, portraying similarities to Simón Bolívar; the typical images that accompany the pro-socialist messages are the Bolshevik red star, Che Guevara portraits, Simón Bolívar portraits, red barrettes, Venezuelan flags, evil Uncle Sam, Uncle Sam as a snake, and Chávez with the superman logo.[57]

Foro de São Paulo connections

Foro de São Paulo (FSP; English: São Paulo Forum) is a conference of leftist political parties and other organizations from Latin America and the Caribbean.

During the early 1990s, the FSP was seem as expressing the emergence of a new Latin American leftist paradigm: non- authoritarian, de-militarized and grassroots-friendly.[59] However, there is a marked contradiction between the fiery and quasi-revolutionary rhetoric about "socialism of the 21st Century" indulged in sometimes by many FSP's leaders, and the plain fact that the positions of power held by such leaders depend, on most cases, on their holding positions in governments which have emerged through the electoral road.[60] In a statement made in 2008 in Lima, before a gathering of Peruvian businessmen, however, Brazil's President Lula would declare, approvingly, that the FSP had "educated" the Left in the understanding of the existence of possibilities of running for elections and gaining power through the democratic way - - a declaration that prompted a comment from AFP, reproduced at the Rede Globo site, to the effect that the hallmark of FSP's activities had been its "very moderate" character.[61] The FSP has been describing as an organization promoting terrorism and/or a revival of communism. The subversive character of the Foro's activities was revived during the 2010 Brazilian presidential election campaign, as the vice-presidential candidate in the José Serra ticket, Antônio Pedro de Siqueira Indio da Costa, denounced repeatedly the connection, by way of the Foro, between the Brazilian Workers' Party and the FARC.[62]

Foro de São Paulo concluded its 16th meeting held in 2010 in Buenos Aires, celebrating initiatives of governments in the region to try to increase state control of the media industry . According to the resolution adopted by the group, the media law passed in Argentina in 2009 - down by the courts in 2010 - must be a " key reference " to other countries . In addition to sharing the awards equally between the state, social movements and the private sector, the law requires the Argentinean Grupo Clarin, the country's largest - to unravel broadcasting licenses for TV and radio . The standard contributes to the " plurality and diversity of voices ," according to the Forum, and shows that the state should have a starring role in the political sector and needs to " put limits on media concentration ." The Forum also highlighted that social sectors in Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay could raise doubts about the " credibility of the mass media " and that this resulted in lower sales levels and hearing in the case of newspapers and TV . Reiterating its full support to the Cuban Revolution, the group also " denounced a fierce media campaign " against the Caribbean country that tries to provoke discrediting the authorities of the regime led by Raúl Castro . Based in São Paulo, in 1990, by President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and the then government leader Fidel Castro, the Forum could articulate left the continent . Together, the parties have become a front of opposition to the neoliberal wave established in the last decade . Today, the parties in the governing Foro 11 Latin American countries and have different proposals for economic and political model . While some want to deploy the socialist model similar to Cuba, others advocate more egalitarian regimes, but without the extinction of the market. During the meeting held in Argentina, the executive secretary of the Forum and PT leader, Valter Pomar, read a letter sent by President Lula to event participants . Besides celebrating the advances from the left on the continent, Lula criticized the " right was pedestrian control of power by popular will ." In the final declaration, the Forum noted that " demonstrates satisfaction " to see the PT candidate for president, Dilma Rousseff leading in the polls on voting intentions .[63]

Criticism

As one of the mains drivers of the word "PiG", Paulo Henrique Amorim is accused by the conservative journalist Reinaldo Azevedo to promote two eternal campaigns: one electoral, and another against the newspaper Folha de S. Paulo and your managing editor. Azevedo said that everything would be done under the auspices of the Brazilian Government, through the advertising budget of a state bank, the Caixa Econômica Federal.[64]

According to opponents of the term, the press just denounce irregularities in public administration, like several well-known cases of corruption. J.R. Guzzo, "Veja"'s columnist, questioned the word "PiG", saying that when the press publishes complaints is accused by government of "destabilizing" Brazil. So, the use of the term would be an attempt to put the population against the press.[65]

According to journalist Pedro Doria, the manifestation of an ideological polarity is intolerant and unable to explain a complex social reality.[66][67]

In turn, Sergio Leo believes that the mainstream press is too complex to be labeled this way because it would encompass very different opinions and agendas.[68]

However, the President of the Associação Nacional de Jornais – ANJ ("National Newspaper Association") herself, Maria Judith Brito, said that Brazilian press has assumed the role of a political agent in the 2010 presidential election. Brito herself is an executive of the Folha de S. Paulo newspaper. Interestingly, she was once a candidate for councilwoman for the Workers' Party.[69] In her own words, Judith argues that the media has taken the role of the opposition to the Lula administration:

About her speech, journalist Luciano Martins Costa, from Observatório da Imprensa, commented that:

Manifesto "For democracy and press freedom"

Bicudo declared his vote in the conservative candidate José Serra at the Brazilian presidential election, 2010, and said that the victory of Dilma Rousseff would endanger the Brazilian democracy.[70]

On September 22, 2010, in an act in front of the law school of the University of São Paulo (USP), lawyers, artists and intellectuals launched a document that claimed to be "a manifesto in defense of democracy and freedom of the press and expression" . was attended by former minister of the Brazilian Supreme Court Carlos Veloso, and lawyers as Hélio Bicudo and Miguel Reale Jr., former minister of the ex-president Fernando Henrique Cardoso.[71][72]

Hélio Bicudo was vice-mayor of São Paulo in the Marta Suplicy's administration, having been away from the Workers Party in 2005.[73] It was he who read, in the microphone, the text of the manifesto, which talked about the risks of authoritarianism :

There was also criticism of the actions of groups accused of acting against the press :

Former Justice Minister Miguel Reale Júnior said that journalists are being threatened :

In his opinion, the act would happen on September 23, 2010, sponsored by labor unions and the PT (acts to criticise the press), is " a process of radicalization immensely dangerous." Reale Júnior said :

Bicudo also said that President Lula is a "full time President" and criticized him forusing the Presidency secutiry on rallies: :

The PSDB candidate for president, José Serra, said on September 22, 2010, in an interview, that there is in the country today " blackmail on the Brazilian press". According to him, the freedom of the press "is the condition for the existence of democracy".[71][72]

The response for this document was the "Manifesto Filósofos Pró-Dilma" ("Scholars Supporting Dilma Rousseff for President"), of October 6, 2010.[74] The document criticizes the surrender of José Serra, a moderate politician, to the impositions of the conservative coalition that gave him support, particularly with regard to the smear campaign against the religious belief (or lack thereof) of the opposing candidate and her position on the abortion question as a public health issue.[75] Serra was also criticized for having pledged to maintain and expand one of the major social programs of Lula, the "Bolsa Familia" - after having spent several years denouncing it as mere "handouts to the poor:"[74]

Globo and the Brazilian Military dictatorship

On August 31, 2013, the newspaper "O Globo" published an editorial that recognized for the first time its support to the 1964 coup d'état that overthrew elected President João Goulart and established a military dictatorship that lasted until 1985.[76] The editorial came out about two months after the violent protests in all of Brazil, initially seen only as against the government (at all levels - municipal, regional, and federal), but which eventually reach the very Rede Globo, historically criticized for its explicit support of the military dictatorship.[77] The editorial caused little or no impact on other organs of the Brazilian mass media (some of them also identified in the editorial as supporters of the generals' regime).[77][78][79] For example, the Rede Record, Rede Globo's main competitor, whose current owners has no links with the dictatorial period, merely reproduced the editorial in your site R7, without comments.[77]

However, in the year in which the military movement completed two decades in Brazil, in 1984, Roberto Marinho, O GLOBO owner, published an editorial signed on the first page . In it to justify their adherence to the military in 1964, made ​​clear his belief that intervention was essential to the maintenance of democracy and then to contain the outbreak of urban warfare . And also revealed that the ratio of editorial support to the regime, though lasting, was not simple all the time . In his words : " We have remained faithful to their objectives (of the revolution) , although conflicting on several occasions with those who wished to take ownership of the revolutionary process , forgetting that the events began , as recognized by Marshal Costa e Silva , ' inescapable requirement for the Brazilian people . " Without people, there would be no revolution, but merely a ' statement ' or ' blow ', with which we would not be supportive . " O GLOBO demanded Getúlio Vargas one constituent institutionalize the Revolution of 30, was against the Estado Novo, supported the 1946 Constitution and advocated the possession of John F. Kennedy in 1955 , when it was challenged by civilian and military sectors .[76]

During the dictatorship in 1964 , he has always positioned himself against the persecution of left journalists, harboring many in the newspaper office. There are many testimonials that account he made ​​sure to keep O GLOBO employees called to testify : accompanying them personally to prevent disappeared. Sometimes asked to give a list of "communists" who worked in the newspaper, but always denied it.[76]

Marinho said a famous phrase to General Juracy Magalhães, Justice Minister of Castello Branco : "Take care of your communist, I take care of mine." In the twenty years during which the dictatorship lasted, O GLOBO, even without withdrawing support to the military, always demanded the restoration of them in the shortest time possible, democratic normalcy .[76]

See also

References

External links

  • UNESCO releases three publications analyzing media regulation and freedom of expression in Brazil
  • The Country of Thirty Berlusconis PDF"
  • O partido mídia e o crime organizado (Portuguese)
This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and USA.gov, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for USA.gov and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
 
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
 
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.
 


Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from Project Gutenberg are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.