"Photojournalism is an art," Folha's photographer Gabriela Biló declared to the newspaper O Globo last week. The controversy surrounding her work, an image of Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva filtered through the shattered glass at the Presidential Palace, published on the First Page on Thursday (19), was so great that it deserved the competitor's attention. In fact, it had been causing turmoil since Wednesday night (18), when it appeared on the newspaper's website and quickly made its way onto social media platforms.

The discussion ran wild. The interpretation of an alleged incentive to Bolsonarist violence and the coup was second only to the certainty that Folha is anti-PT, among the many messages sent by readers. The photographer herself felt compelled to give her version: Lula smiling and fixing his tie, behind broken glass at the height of his heart, would be proof of the president's resistance. To each his ( or her) own.

Scenes that imply a reality beyond the one actually portrayed always cause controversy. The photograph of Dilma Rousseff pierced by a sword, published by O Estado de S.Paulo in 2011, won awards, but also much criticism for the perception of a subliminal message of media rejection against the then president. As of now, there was no shortage of heads, sentences, and beatings for the PT ( the workers' party).

It so happens that the image published by Folha is not a snapshot of this classic type. It was made up of a multiple exposure technique, overlapping the image of the broken glass with that of the president, even though the damaged piece was 30 meters from the place where Lula was taking part in an event accompanied by journalists. The feature is widely used in sports records and phenomena such as eclipses, where the progress of the action has informative value. Two fundamental aspects, however, separate these examples from the discussed newspaper publication: context and object are unique; it is evident to the viewer that the image has been worked on. Lula's face through the glass, for the vast majority of observers, passes as a legitimate snapshot, that's the problem.

The ombudsman, at first, did not notice the effect and considered the image impressive in internal criticism. He believed what he saw as many subscribers. He reformed his opinion when he learned that the image was a montage in practice. Or an image made using the double exposure technique, as its succinct caption explains, but which inevitably resulted in a montage. The photographer and the newspaper refute the description. They have no option since the artifice is vetoed by their own Style Guide (page 106): "... tampering with the portrayed reality is prohibited, such as erasing people or altering their physical characteristics, eliminating or inserting objects and changing scenarios".

Exceptions are listed, such as preserving the identity of minors and sensitive information. Montage is only allowed in "essentially illustrative images". For a newspaper so keen on standards and fundamentals, which does not allow itself to use the term terrorist for coup-plotters before due verification, for example, such a reading of its own rulebook sounds convenient.

In the universe outside the newspaper, according to professionals in the area, Folha's publication would not resist the codes of conduct of the major news agencies either.

Although the photographer and the newspaper argue that Lula and glass were part of the same context (an extremely elastic use of the term, given that the images do not belong to the same frame), the episode sets a precedent. If settings and contexts separated by 30 meters can be merged, what will happen when they are 100m or 100 km away? Of course, the question here is not one regarding geographic distances.

"Folha's Photography is modernizing the traditional imagery of power in Brasilia. We prefer to run the risks of renewal rather than reinforce the same old thing", stated the Editorial Secretariat when asked about the conceptual connection of this type of work with the language of social networks, usually quick, shrill, and almost always obvious.

It would be appreciated if the newspaper also took other risks, such as participating in the debate. Only the photographer has spoken publicly about the subject so far, an important part, but not the only one, in the decision to edit the image. The newspaper promises an internal seminar, but it would be much more interesting to submit to the scrutiny of readers and experts, not just invite them to write articles.

It would have the chance to explain why it is not afraid to see its combative journalism, preserved with great difficulty in recent years, being confused with manipulation. Augmenting reality is a tempting idea, but it stretches everything from editorial intent to ambiguity. Photojournalism can even become art, but it should never become doubt.

_{Translated by Cassy Dias}