Journalists and Judges Shouldn't Escape from the Weighing Balance

10/10/2016 - 12h09

A judge from São Paulo has placed the press under suspicion of being financed by organized crime. His accusation was published on Wednesday (the 5th) in the proper and sober way.

"Due to the biased coverage of the press regarding the Carandiru case, I keep asking myself if there isn't money from organized crime financing part of it, just like it does the majority of self-styled human rights organizations," wrote Judge Ivan Sartori. The title of his commentary on social media is: "When the Press is Suspect".

Sartori presided over the session of the São Paulo Court of Justice that annulled the judgement of massacre at Carandiru. In a lower court, 75 military police (MP) had been condemned for their participation in the action that left 111 people dead.

Sartori declared that "there was no massacre at Carandiru, but there was an action of legitimate defense [on the part of the MPs]". He moved for the acquittal of the defendants, without the need for calling a new jury trial.

The reaction to the accusation of the judge regarding the possibility of the press being financed by organized crime - fired off without the least hint of connection to reality - was practically limited to a note of protest from the Brazilian Press Association.

Should journalists, newspapers and their professional associations sue the judge? What if a journalist or newspaper had placed the legal system under suspicion of being financed by organized crime? How would magistrates and their professional associations have reacted?

An example to be found in Paraná. After publishing a report in February about elevated salaries for judges and prosecutors in the State, three reporters, a graphic designer and a web designer from the newspaper "Gazeta do Povo" were sued 41 times in 19 cities throughout the State by magistrates and prosecutors seeking R$ 1,3 million (US$ 1,05 million) in moral damages. They complained of having been "ridiculed".

In July, Federal Supreme Court (STF) Minister Rosa Weber suspended all of the hearings and lawsuits in the case until the newspaper's claim of merit can be judged. The case is pending before the STF.

Conflicts between the Judiciary and the Press seem to be widely in evidence. In two declarations during the month of September, National Justice Inspector and Superior Court of Justice minister Joáo Otávio Noronha voiced strong criticism: "Poor country the one who has its judiciary hostage to the media", he said.

He claims that the press effectively condemned those involved in cases like the 'mensalão' (big monthly payments) and the Lava Jato (Car Wash) and unduly pressures the judiciary. He proposes that "newspaper headlines that annihilate life histories" should be punished with rigorous indemnifications.

Rigorous criticism of the media is fundamentally important, necessary and healthy. Newspapers and magazines do, in fact, condemn people on their covers, exercising a Judicial power that they don't have. It is the right of any citizen to question that which is published.

Questions regarding the freedom of the press, the reaction of those who feel affected by news coverage and the responsibility of newspapers and journalists have a historical record to be examined.

In 1964, the civil rights movement in the United States published a manifest in "The New York Times" newspaper to raise funds for leaders like Martin Luther King. It described "an unprecedented wave of terror" in police actions against peaceful protests in Montgomery, Alabama.

History subsequently has proven that there was police aggression but the manifest by the civil rights leaders also contained exaggerated details or erroneous information.

L. B. Sullivan, from the Montgomery police department, sued the newspaper for defamation and libel. The article hadn't mentioned Sullivan by name, but he argued that the manifest defamed him because the police actions during the episode had been under his responsibility. He won in the first, lower-court decision and "The New York Times" was ordered to pay indemnification of US$ 500,000.

The newspaper appealed to the Supreme Court arguing that it had had no intention of damaging the reputation of the police official. It also added that if a newspaper were obligated to check the accuracy of all of the details regarding criticisms of a public servant, the press would be hindered.

The highest court of the United States ruled in favor of the "NYT". In order to prove defamation and libel, a public figure must show that the newspaper acted "with malice", defined as the "real knowledge that the statement in question was false or acted in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity".

In the opinion of the Supreme Court, the free and open debate regarding the conduct of public figures is more important than occasional honest factual errors that could cause eventual damage to the reputation of a public figure.

In the case of Brazil, it remains to be seen how many judges want to stimulate and how many want to restrict a robust and open debate regarding public questions, especially when their own corporate interests have to be confronted.

Translated by LLOYD HARDER

Read the article in the original language