As soon as it was aired, the video raised protests from Dilma Rousseff voters, who claimed that message was a sympathetic nod in the direction of the presidential candidate José Serra. The slogan of Serra’s presidential campaign is “Brazil can do more” and his party, PSBD, is represented by the number 45 in the voting process.
The noise was so loud that on the next day Globo decided to suspend the broadcasting of the video. The network claimed that the message had been elaborated on last November, before Serra’s slogan was released, but the video would not be aired anymore to avoid giving grounds for accusation of Globo being tendentious.
It’s hard to believe that it was all just one big coincidence — especially considering Rede Globo’s historical alignment with the conservative political parties. One of the most shameful episodes of Brazilian journalism happened in 1989, when Rede Globo manipulated the editing of a debate between the two presidential candidates, Fernando Collor de Melo and Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. During “Jornal Nacional”, the network’s main news program that back then held an audience rate of more than 90%, the edited version of the debate showed all the best moments from Collor and only the worst ones from Lula. The biased media coverage was a decisive element in electing Fernando Collor as president.
We are not in 1989 anymore and the “We can do more video” certainly gave Rede Globo a taste of the time change. The complaints about the video started only a few hours after its first broadcast. Marcelo Branco, coordinator of Dilma Rousseff’s online campaign, reposted on the morning of 04/19 on his twitter account a commentary about the similarities between both slogans. It was all that it took to the commentaries spread all over the web. Later on the same day, Globo announced the video’s suspension.
Marcelo Branco's "tweet": Serra's slogan "inspires" Rede Globo's Jingle: http://tinyurl.com/y4qvxwy
The episode proves how the social media is gaining space and importance in Brazil and how it’s changing the relation between voters and media. Nowadays, Globo probably wouldn’t be able to repeat the 1989 debate’s episode and get away with it.
By the way, in 2009 Rede Globo saw no need of producing a piece for its 44th anniversary. Maybe 45 is their lucky number.
Related links:
Interview (in Portuguese) with Sérgio Caruzo, coordinator of José Serra digital campaign, and Marcelo Branco, coordinator of Dilma Rouseff digital campaign, on the importance of social media in the elections: http://infoapps.com.br/podcast/trends/eleicoes-na-web.mp3
(In Portuguese. By the end of the interview, both Caruzo and Branco talk about Globo’s video)
Suggested readings:
On the social media campaign trail in Brazil (article, in English): http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/social-media-campaign-trail-brazil
Imprensa e Poder
(Press and Power)
Author: Emiliano José
Publisher: Hucitec
In my opinion, the deepest analysis of the media’s decisive influence on electing Fernando Collor de Melo as president.
Notícias do Planalto
(News from Planalto)
Author: Mário Sérgio Conti
Publisher: Companhia das Letras
A complete report on the mass media’s relation with Fernando Collor written by an insider — Conti was one of the editors of Veja magazine when Collor was elected.
Suggested soundtrack: Bob Dylan, The Times They Are A-Changin
Hi Tatiana,
ResponderExcluirI was a young man in 1989, and I still remember vividly two moments in that presidential run.
Firstly, the broadcast of that edited debate in Jornal Nacional of Globo. As many, I saw the debate live with sharp attention. It was my first presidential election, as it was for my parents (yeah, they stole 1986 from us), and I knew that was a biased cut, days before the election.
Secondly, months later, I saw a videotape of the raw footage of that debate. Purportedly, it was a videotape stolen from Globo by an insider. It was a "sorry-guys-too-late" videotape proving the cut was not impartial. It took months, not one day… something is changing, indeed.
But if no one pays attention, even months are enough.