An important part of Folha's readers, the generation that experienced the first signs that full democracy was feasible in the country, got used to reading an activist newspaper, engaged in the Diretas Já campaign. There was no doubt in the 1980s. It was to seek the light or remain in the darkness. There was no partisan issue, the point was to guarantee freedom of expression and the right to vote for president. It was from that moment that Folha became the most important newspaper in the country. Not for reporting what was seen on the streets, as there were still those who tried to hide what was happening, but also for not being afraid to participate or to be noticed participating. There was a public, civic feeling impossible to ignore. It was only natural for the newspaper to be part of the whole exciting mess.

There is much to discuss about Folha's trajectory since then. Despite its uncompromising defense of critical, pluralist and non-partisan journalism, there were many episodes in which the newspaper was accused of taking sides or covertly taking over phenomena such as Lava Jato. The newspaper got used to being beaten from all corners. For many, it even feeds it, with calculated doses of sensationalism. In a kind of schizophrenic reading, Folha manages to be at the same time PT and Bolsonarista, libertarian and conservative, racist and identity-oriented, whatever the observer wants or is able to see in its texts.

This strange feeling is reinforced by Primeiras Páginas such as the one on Wednesday (3), in which an interview with Almino Affonso, articulator of the 1977 letter, is flanked by an extract from the columnist who classifies the USP manifesto as an electoral voter. The newspaper extensively covers movements in defense of democracy while highlighting obtuse views. Such concessions leave marks. To this day, readers regret, for example, the space given to Fabio Wajngarten in Tendências /Debates on the noisy and coup 7th of September last year.

Folha, at a high cost, as already discussed in this column a few times, is consistent with its journalistic precepts by exposing contradictory ideas. It should be the same with your story. The moment calls, as in 1984.

It is not enough just to support, the newspaper needs to subscribe, formally integrate the civil society manifestos that defend electronic voting machines and unconditional respect for the results of the elections, daily mistreated by President Jair Bolsonaro and his allies, civilians and military, who insist on naturalizing subversive speeches and attitudes.

Faced with "a head of government who, in the opinion of this Folha, has long since lost the conditions to remain in office," as the newspaper wrote in an editorial after the president's unusual meeting with ambassadors, there is no other option, also as in 1984.

Bolsonaro has been a threat since before the election, but his term went further, degenerating the political environment, the relationship between the Powers, a disaster. The newspaper was not insensitive to the process. In 2020, it even launched a campaign in defense of democracy, re-edited the yellow banner of Diretas in its header, promoted a popular course on the dictatorship and changed its famous slogan. "A newspaper in service of Brazil" became "A newspaper at the service of democracy." The risk detected two years ago is now consolidated as a real and immediate danger. The newspaper cannot limit itself to reporting, it needs to participate, once again, as in 1984.

Asked if Folha intends to endorse any of the manifestos, the Editorial Secretariat replied that the newspaper published the editorial "Always Democracy," a week ago, in which it defends the manifestos. He also said that the National Association of Newspapers, a sector entity of which Folha is a part, published its own document in favor of democracy and freedom of expression; and which has been giving visibility to civil society movements in reports.

Regarding the possible participation of its professionals in the manifestos, he stated that, at the end of July, in an internal communiqué, the Editorial Board declared that there were no obstacles to those who wanted to sign the USP letter. "The Board understands that in this case it is not a partisan demonstration," something that is prohibited by the Editorial Manual, "but the enunciation of common principles of civil coexistence."

Would it make any difference, then, for Folha to formally adhere to the document prepared by the former students of São Francisco or to the one led by Fiesp? In today's times, where everything needs to be explained, reiterated, underlined, of course it does. More importantly, it would make a difference for that generation of readers who saw the country change along with Folha.

If 38 years ago that was what surprised the public, now it's just what you expect from this diary.

_{Translated by Kiratiana Freelon}