In a heavy week for the Lula government, the beginning of a billionaire trial against Fox News, owned by Rupert Murdoch, the most watched cable channel in the US and spearhead of the moderate, extreme, local and worldwide right wings almost went by unnoticed.

The beginning, in fact, was the end. Besieged by a defamation lawsuit filed by a company that provides voting equipment, Fox rushed to make a deal: instead of risking seeing a jury of 12 souls decide on damages worth US$ 1.6 billion, it paid US$ 787.5 million for Dominion Voting Systems to settle the matter. A lot of money, but less than a quarter of the station's current revenue and without having to apologize.

In the 2020 elections, among the many delusions and fake News embraced by the Trumpist media, one stated that Dominion machines were used to manipulate poll results. The company filed a lawsuit against the broadcaster, which has not been an easy task in the US since 1964, when the Supreme Court ruled in New York Times v. Sullivan, that it is necessary to prove "actual malice" or malintent in the dissemination of misinformation published by the media.

Dominion gathered over a million pages of evidence. Internal Fox communications show that the allegations of fraud did not stop and that the network, its hosts and even Murdoch were fully aware of it. The embarrassment was such that the judge used capital letters ("CRYSTAL clear") in the case file to state that Fox did convey false information and that, therefore, it would not be possible to claim freedom of expression.

Described that way, the episode would denote a step, albeit a timid one, in the fight against misinformation. It so happens that it also advances on established jurisprudence, protection for the work of the press from attacks by public figures, notably reactionary ones.

The idea of reviewing the 1964 sentence in the Supreme Court, now conservative, is not new. This was the case recently with Roe v. Wade, regarding abortion.

It is false, however, the dilemma between ensuring the full exercise of journalism or containing the lie. Fox itself showed that it is necessary to curb behavior like theirs in 2020. In a sentence well picked from the lawsuit by a TV critic from the Times, the most popular presenter of the station, Tucker Carlson, after acknowledging that the alleged frauds did not exist, justified the unjustifiable: "Our viewers are good people and they believe this." If the public thinks it's true, who is the journalist to say that it's not.

In the argument regarding the Liberal Party's (PL) Fake News in Brazil, soon to be considered by Congress, much will be said about freedom of expression and of the press. It is one of the main mottos of social networks, which are opposed to a large part of the project. Carlson's sincere and crooked reasoning is an excellent example of how easy it is to misrepresent such concepts.

ADÉLIO RELOADED

In a heavy week for the Lula government, it did not go unnoticed, but there was almost no time to pay attention to new details of the soap opera that seems to have no end regarding the 2018 stabbing of Jair Bolsonaro.

According to a note published by Folha, "The Federal Police investigation mentions a link between the PCC ( Criminal organization) and Adélio's defense, but management sees the argument as flawed". Already in the headline, the newspaper makes it clear that there is no consensus within the Federal Police regarding the investigation. The news about the criminal group's supposed proximity to one of Adélio Bispo's defenders is subsidiary to an internal dispute. A second report, published hours later, says that "the Federal Police under Lula concealed an operation on the Adélio-PCC case authorized by the Justice". This headline remained in the printed newspaper. The editing steps speak for themselves.

Adélio's case is a huge entanglement of narratives, with Bolsonarism defending the involvement of the left wing, which fights back with a 'faked attack' argument. The subject lacks clarity, but the newspaper, instead of moving away from the confusion of versions, expands it. Worse, with the second headline, it highlights that the government would have hidden the operation, but the necessary investigation into the fact the article does not deliver.

JOURNALISTIC OBJECTIVITY

On Sunday (16), the Ilustríssima section featured an article by Martin Baron, former executive editor of the Washington Post. He defended objectivity in journalism, discarded in a study that has been much debated in recent times. This period is very opportune: "They are all arguments against articles that start half-finished, even before the investigation, in which the choice of sources is an exercise in confirming bias and where one tries to hear the voice of the other side (often in the last minute) only because it is required, not as an essential ingredient of honest investigative work".

PAUSE

The column, exceptionally, will not circulate on Sunday (30).

_{Translated by Cassy Dias}