The Condemnation of the Convict

06/27/2017 - 14h43

Freedom of expression is one of the supreme values of democracy and one of the bases for practicing journalism. Pluralism of ideas, positions and opinions is the essence of good journalism. Limitations on freedom of expression and pluralism bring immediate harm to readers, right? Not everyone always thinks this way.

Launched more than 40 years ago, the section Trends/Debates, published on page 3, is a showcase for Folha's editorial project. It is the object of frequent reader comments and criticisms.

It has as a basis one of Folha's recently released 12 editorial principles, which is to cultivate plurality and to visibly highlight different points of view in controversial or inconclusive issues and areas.

In the beginning of this month of June, Folha published an article "The Streets and the Voting Booths", written by José Dirceu, former congressman (PT-SP Party) and former minister of the Lula government. Dirceu was granted a pardon for his sentence in the Mensalão (big monthly allowances.) scandal, but was subsequently condemned for active corruption and conspiracy related to the so-called Car Wash investigation. In May, the Federal Supreme Court granted him a habeas corpus, after having served two years of his sentence in prison.

In his text, Dirceu referred to the Temer government as a coup instigator and usurper, called for a political, economic and social revolution and for immediate new elections. He said that there is no space for conciliation and that "it is necessary, for the good of society and the country to put an end to this trap of false national harmony and ludicrous salvationism against corruption". He didn't make mention of his own condemnation nor of the many charges of corruption that he is still facing.

The article provoked a revolt among readers: "As much as I admire the freedom of expression of Folha, I think it is a disservice to publish an article from a citizen like Zé Dirceu, who was involved in crimes in the Car Wash operation and sentenced to 32 years of imprisonment"; "My feeling is that of revulsion. Opening up space for José Dirceu is an affront to people's intelligence"; "Surreal and revolting to open up Folha and come across an article from a convict, leader of a conspiracy, spinning commentaries about a "coup mongering coalition".

Reactions like these come in with a relative frequency. Readers contested recent articles by ex-congressman Eduardo Cunha, also a convict, and President Michel Temer, charged in the so-called Car Wash investigation.

But this degree of ferociousness against an article seems to have only found a parallel with that of January of 2000, when Folha published an article by Fernando Collor de Mello. The ex-president had been removed from politics for eight years due to the suspension of his political rights and at that moment was presenting himself as a pre-candidate for Mayor of São Paulo.

On that occasion, Folha justified the publication by reminding readers of its "unwavering commitment to pluralism". In the case of Dirceu, the newspaper didn't publish an explanation, even though readers complained. So as their representative, I questioned the editorial board. Their response reflected the same spirit of 17 years ago: "The publication is encompassed by the newspaper's commitment to contrary viewpoints, plurality and freedom of expression", confirmed Vinícius Mota, managing editor.

As a provocation or facetiousness, readers asked whether the newspaper would provide space to other convicts like Marcola (leader of the PCC), Fernandinho Beira-Mar (a drug lord), or Suzane von Richthofen (murderer of her own parents).

Mota responded: "It would merit a good discussion on a case by case basis, but the tendency would be to publish, as long as there was no incitement of criminal activity or offense to the honor of third-parties". My position is the same.

I disagree with those who fail to recognize the right of someone condemned by the Judiciary to express themselves. The crime that they committed, and for which they have been punished, was not given the sentence of silence. The reiterated defense of pluralism is enshrined in the base of Folha's project and in the newspapers success. It may provoke complaints from readers, but it ensures journalistic, political and cultural diversity.

I grant, however, that plurality doesn't remove the newspaper's obligation to its role as editor, essential in an era of multi-information. An article brimming with errors, distortions, propaganda and proselytizing should be critically rebutted immediately. If it weren't, the newspaper would be surrendering its role of journalistic curator.

It's worth repeating a phrase from a biographer of Voltaire's, sometimes attributed erroneously to the 18th century French author himself: "I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write".

Translated by LLOYD HARDER

Read the article in the original language