Last week, Folha promoted the announced debate with its journalists to discuss the limits of diversity. The meeting is one of the first measures taken after the crisis generated by the publication of an article by Antonio Risério, in January. The text provoked indignation and accusations of racism against Folha even from the newsroom itself.

A summary of the seminar was published on Wednesday night (2). In general, the newspaper reiterated its unrestricted defense of diversity, while the newsroom questioned, among other points, the fact that structural racism is placed in the sphere of legitimate controversy, something that Folha itself does not agree with. Discussion seems theoretical in times of lynching, but it is a necessary exercise.

I reiterate the observation made two weeks ago in this space, that Folha felt the need to work with a more diverse team and that this necessarily brings new perspectives on racism. I now add the idea that the newspaper needs to review the way in which it plays its role in public debate.

Giving space to the contradictory is one thing, approving crazy things is another. In the flat land of the internet, without hierarchy, editing and so many other resources that journalism has managed in years of practice, it is difficult to separate what is news from what is hacking. Folha cannot pretend that its stony clauses (critical, diverse and non-partisan journalism) remain sufficient. It is necessary to find another way to fulfill them in a digital environment that ignores them.

WORLDS WAR

In a column published on Monday (31), Joel Pinheiro da Fonseca made a satire, as he later defined it, in which he defended supposed limits to freedom of expression. He cited a series of arguments that he would normally refute, with no line of thought about being ironic. The hysterical tone of the text should denounce the intention, but first it provoked strangeness and, later, heavier insinuations, such as cynicism.

A little of everything appeared in the messages sent to the newspaper and to the ombudsman, including who believed that Joel had turned his back and who agreed with the terms proposed in the satire article. Leandro Narloch, in his column on Friday (4), called his colleague's strategy a prank for those who flirt with authoritarianism.

The task here is not to comment on what was or was not written, as Folha columnists enjoy the freedom they discuss so much. The problem is the mode. Ironic texts are complicated in the journalistic environment and often end up being misinterpreted. Authors of true humor, such as Antonio Prata, know what it's like. Things get worse in the flat world of the internet, where titles recklessly occupy the function of opinion and reporting texts. "Who cares about unrestricted freedom of expression?", questioned Joel's statement that, let's face it, can be beaten in any direction.

Even if it was fully understood as irony, the gesture carries a belligerent tone, the same that we perceive daily on social networks and should be avoided in an arena of debates like Folha. It is often not, to the point that Hélio Schwartsman, the other day, felt the need to salute the politeness of a counterpoint made to one of his columns.

Folha readers need more arguments in these difficult times and fewer elbows.

DEGAS

Suddenly the wave comes and takes what you thought would never leave your side. I've lost friends in the last week, abruptly, as if it was possible to imagine any smooth path in these cases. Ygor Salles, Emerson Figueiredo and Edgard Alves, one of the greatest sports journalists in this country.

Degas, as we called him, was much more than a writing colleague for several generations who passed through Esporte da Folha. He was father, mother, friend, confidant, mentor. It was a rock, which was not shaken by anything, which was always there, firm, holding up, giving support and also being hard when we needed to wake up.

He was an Olympic reporter by definition, he went to seven editions of the Games, but he found time to stop what he was doing and meet those who were looking for him, whether one of us, journalists from competing vehicles, athletes or top hats. When I started as a Sports Seal, I was amazed to be with him in some coverage and everyone, on

and off the court, would call him affectionately by name. Out of respect, in fact, he came before proximity, for he was a straight journalist.

Degas will be greatly missed. And to journalism, which, more than ever, needs the rocks to not be carried away by the many waves that appear.

_{Translated by Kiratiana Freelon}