The military report on the electronic ballot boxes is out. There was no fraud, it was written here and abroad. "Case closed", declared Folha in an editorial. They only forgot to check with those who inhabit barracks and those who camp around them. In another week of reading the facts attenuated by the media, members of the Armed Forces went public at least four times to reinforce the messages they want to give: it is not possible to verify if there was fraud in the elections, the concerns of the protesters dressed as Neymar are legitimate, the Judiciary extrapolates.

On Wednesday (9), along with the report that in fact found no fraud, Paulo Sérgio Nogueira sent a letter to the electoral court in which he stated that it was indeed possible. Malicious code could be inserted into the system and this would not be verifiable, the defense minister claimed. Folha and O Estado de S.Paulo modified their headlines in the first version but soon abandoned any moderation. An adamant "does not point to fraud" prevailed in both newspapers. Globo was worse, treating the Supreme Electoral Court as a subject, who "received with satisfaction a Defense report that does not point to fraud".

The mismatch made Paulo Sérgio release a note on Thursday (10) to underline that the possibility of fraud had not been ruled out. In Estadão, Hamilton Mourão wrote that democracy is "a word distorted by the great press and restricted by the Judiciary". The elected senator also sympathized "with the deep feeling of restlessness and nonconformity that is taking over the streets and squares".

On Friday (11), the same Estadão anticipated a joint note from the three Forces, by which restrictions on rights, by public agents, were as reprehensible as excesses committed in demonstrations. When reporting the statement, Folha concluded that, by defending the solution of disputes within the democratic rule of law (the four lines of the Constitution?), the commanders were ruling out a military coup to annul the elections. The newspaper missed, however, the first paragraph of the note, in which the Forces say they are "always present and moderating in the most important moments of our history" (moderators as in the misinterpretation of article 142?). Camouflaged, the lines wanted to be eloquent.

There is no case closed here, far from it. It is imperative to highlight the military's refusal to put a stone on the subject. If the elected government gives reasons for the media to hammer that it is necessary to be clear about fiscal control, it would be good to use part of this indignation to alert the barracks that it is also necessary to be clear when denying coup-mongering. The ceiling is important, but only if there is a floor.

SECRET STANDARD

Folha became news at the beginning of this month when websites and social networks showed that the newspaper changed the headline and text of a service report on the secret budget. "Learn what the secret budget is and how it works", published on September 8, became "Learn what it is and how the rapporteur's amendment works" on October 17. The modification date, however, only appeared in the newspaper's text after the story gained more relevance now in November. Which story? That Folha would have changed its standards from the perspective of a Lula government. According to the thesis, if the secret budget was used to beat Jair Bolsonaro, the rapporteur's amendment would be a euphemism to ease the news for the president-elect.

It didn't help that the newspaper gave a dry response on Twitter: "Folha has always used the term 'reporter's amendments' in its news coverage. The term secret budget is used by opinion columnists." It goes without saying that this text was altered to adapt to the exotic but true current standard of the newspaper. It failed to explain the reason for such itching.

According to the Editorial Secretariat, "secret budget is not a precise term to classify rapporteur's amendments in news text". "These expenditures are recorded and can be verified in the budget execution system, although they do not obey objective distribution criteria." Let the readers judge the argument for vetoing the expression, which is really rare in Folha titles as seen in the search on the site.

It is clear, however, that giving up the term secret budget, an Estadão scoop, at this stage of the game, is equivalent to giving up writing 'rachadinha' ( illegal salary deduction scheme), for example. It makes no sense.

SECRET VOTE

Once the party of democracy was over, Folha, in internal communication, warned its columnists about the change in the entry in the Newsroom Handbook that contemplates them. Electoral proselytism and voting demonstrations are prohibited, a practice that became widespread in these last elections. Anyone who thinks they need to do so will have the option of publishing a single article in the Tendências / Debates ( trends&debates) section.

_{Translated by Cassy Dias}