LÚCIO FLÁVIO PINTO
I was invited to be in London on 7 April to be one of the speakers at the symposium “Making the protection of journalists a reality: putting an end to impunity”, promoted by BBC Global News and BBC Faculty of Journalism. The meeting was motivated by the growth, in many parts of the world, of violence against journalists on an unprecedented scale, without justice serving as a shield against such violence.
The BBC brought together opinion leaders such as new executives, editors and prominent journalists – and representatives from the UN and the International Criminal Court and various governments to jointly seek solutions to the problem. The focus was on countries considered key, such as Egypt, Turkey, Brazil and Pakistan. My name was recommended to address the Brazilian issue.
Not being able to go to London, I sent the following text, which was read at the time.
“A late republican country, the most backward in Latin America, Brazil has experienced few continuous moments of democracy since the end of its monarchy in 1989. None of these moments was fully democratic, according to Western standards. I was born when our fragile democracy was trying to recover from the longest dictatorship installed until then, between 1937 and 1945. I entered professional journalism when that democracy had been suppressed by the military coup of 1964.
As was the tradition of these putsche the military who dethroned the constitutional president, João Goulart, half a century ago, were still impregnated with the mechanics of these pronouncements Latin Americans: after the “cleansing” of civilians considered corrupt and subversive, power was given back to the survivors of this letter for the continuity of relative democracy – relative to its confirmation by the military. That is why, once the wave of repression and violence against the enemies of the new regime had passed, a margin of freedom of expression was allowed and the criticism broadened and deepened, including through an opposition press.
A group of military leaders did not agree and decided to keep control of the country in a strong hand this time. Five generals succeeded each other in the presidency of the republic during the military dictatorship, which lasted 21 years and certainly exceeded the eight years of the Estado Novo of Getúlio Vargas, a civilian under military tutelage. Not only because it lasted longer, but because it faced armed resistance from some leftist groups.
All the big press, with the exception of the newspaper Last hour , from Rio de Janeiro, the only one to support Goulart, endorsed the coup and even actively participated in it. They also acted on the assumption that the military would soon return power to civilians. In 1965 the candidate of the majority of the media, the ex-president Juscelino Kubitscheck, would return to the position, in the already programmed elections.
But the plot changed and the press barons had to adapt to it. Many simply accommodated themselves to the leadership of the military. A few rejected the new regime. Among them, the most prominent in the opposition was precisely the one most committed to the conspiracy: The State of São Paulo . Of the main newspapers in the country, it was the one that suffered direct intervention from the government, which placed a censor in the newsroom to purge the news considered inconvenient or inappropriate.
The coexistence of journalists with a state censor inside the newsroom is one of the worst experiences that a professional in the press can have. There, abuse of power, stupidity and arrogance on the part of those who judge themselves above all are materialized. The suppression of texts produced after a long, difficult and expensive process of verification and writing is an act of voluptuousness that comes to bear comparison with the physical torture, which many of those persecuted by the regime suffered.
There is, however, another side to the issue: the journalist is distinguished from the censor, the enemy is on the other side – and must be treated as an enemy. This clear and extreme separation of bodies leads to the formation of a cohesive field of those who do not accept the violence of information control, whether employers or employees, left or right. The history of the war fought in the newsroom of The State of São Paulo against military censorship, usually exercised by a civilian, is about to be written. It is a pity that it remains little known. Learning, because it is painful, is therefore extremely valuable for democracy.
Once democracy was re-established in 1985, it was thought that this war of resistance would become unnecessary. The freedom protected by the 1988 constitution allowed everything to be informed and debated, without any hindrance. The alternative press, which had germinated during the dictatorship as an escape valve from state control, would lose its raison d’etre. The people would be better informed to make the necessary decisions to advance the civilizing process in Brazil.
Everyone thought so, including me, in 1987, when I decided to launch a new alternative newspaper – and the most radical of my 21-year professional career up to that point. To cost as little as possible and survive the hardships of time, this Personal Journal would only have one member, myself. It would be in a small format, without color, without photographs and without advertising. If the ad is the main source of a large newspaper company, it is a limiting factor for it and for small publications. The space paid for by advertisers usually works as a bargaining chip, generating a promiscuous relationship or even a partnership, in sacrifice of the truth.
I created this newspaper to be able to publish an article about a political crime, by a citizen who was the first lawyer for squatters in the bloody land conflicts with farmers in southern Pará, one of the most violent regions of Brazil. The mainstream press did not want this report because it pointed to powerful people as members of the criminal consortium. But I thought the newspaper would have an ephemeral life. Brazilians had freedom like never before.
Gradually, however, I realized that certain information, themes or perspectives only appeared in my newspaper. It wasn’t because I was especially competent. It was simply because the mainstream press refused to address these issues. It was the editorial attitude of the corporation, but supported by the journalists. The number of professionals who self-censored by their own deliberation, without commitment to their employers, grew.
This trend intensified as some companies began requiring their top journalists to create individual companies. The relationship would become between companies, instead of the prevailing situation until then: the company hiring the individual of the professional. Becoming responsible for an individual company, the journalist was transferred some charges, such as labor and social security.
Having to bear costs, the journalist became more cautious and, in many, caution became cowardice. They no longer wanted to take risks, face the powerful. There was also an incentive for this attitude by my contractors, who promoted these professionals, with an emphasis on those with greater revenue and power, those of television stations. Thanks to this notoriety, these journalists began to give lectures in closed circuit, receiving increasing fees. The information, which was previously delivered to the public, became the privilege of those attending these lectures, able to pay high to receive this information.
Having made the radical choice for poverty, since its income comes from the individual sale of its copies, my newspaper has had to survive since then, for almost 27 years, so that elements of the history of the Amazon and, to a large extent, of Brazil, were not simply expunged from any printed record. So that its material poverty could be compensated, in such a way as to continue to attract the reader most interested in the day-to-day history, the newspaper strives to investigate in the most complete and profound way everything it publishes. This guideline ensured its credibility, inversely proportional to its physical expression: small size, almost artisanal shape, circulation of two thousand copies, sold only in street stalls.
By becoming a reference source, the newspaper attracted the reaction of those who are in the sights of journalism when it performs its noblest function: auditing power, exercising critical surveillance, expressing the public interest. Since 1992, 33 lawsuits have been filed against me, 19 of them by the owners of the largest communication group in the Amazon, something – I assume – unique in the history of the world press: a newspaper systematically prosecuting a journalist in court. The biggest of all land grabbers in the history of mankind also filed a lawsuit against me, as well as loggers and judges associated with this scheme of illicit appropriation of public lands.
As has become a hallmark of my newspaper, its credibility was not attacked because the articles considered offensive to these characters contained unquestionable facts, extracted from a good source, usually official. The plot was intended to entangle me in the webs of the judiciary, as a character even more distressed than the one created by Franz Kafka in The process . Reality, once again, exceeded fictional creation in surrealism.
As I couldn’t get a lawyer to challenge these powerful people, I ended up having to dedicate myself to my defense, which resulted in a loss of time previously dedicated to journalistic investigation. The intention was exactly that: to harm the quality of my newspaper and, in this progression, to bring it to exhaustion and end. Fortunately, at great cost, this purpose remains unfulfilled. But justice, the least democratic of all the powers of the Brazilian republic, has been an efficient partner for those who, in full democracy, want to intimidate, restrict and eliminate the independent press in Brazil. From time to time, eliminating the journalist himself, prosecuted and physically attacked, as I was, and, in extreme moments that are often, murdered.
So that this doesn’t happen and Brazil doesn’t go through a process that has something to do with the Weimar Republic, which preceded Nazism in Germany, I send you this message of mine, in the hope that it will sensitize you and mobilize you. them to the special and worrying condition of Brazil in our time”.
Lúcio Flávio Pinto , 64, is a journalist, sociologist, graduated from the School of Sociology and Politics of São Paulo. Editor of Jornal Pessoa, an alternative publication that has been circulating in Belém/PA since 1987. Author of more than 20 books on the Amazon, including the Amazon War, Journalism on the Shooting Line and Against Power. Lúcio Flávio is the only Brazilian journalist elected among the 100 heroes of press freedom by the international organization Reporters Without Borders.
