Beyond Citizen Kane, eine Dokumentation über die brasilianischen Wahlen im Jahr 1989, vertritt die Meinung, dass der Sender Rede Globo eine einseitige Zusammenfassung der Fernsehdebatte zwischen den beiden Kandidaten ausstrahlte, schreibt Felipe Correa.
Der Fall
Im Jahr 1989 fanden in Brasilien die ersten freien Wahlen seit 29 Jahren statt, womit die Zeit der Militärdiktatur beendet war. Im zweiten und letzten Wahlgang kandidierten zwei Männer um die Präsidentschaft der neuen demokratischen Republik: Lula da Silva und Fernando Collor. Zwei Tage vor der Wahl strahlte Rede Globo, der bei weitem beliebteste Fernsehsender Brasiliens, als Teil seiner Primetime-Nachrichtensendung eine Zusammenfassung der letzten Fernsehdebatte zwischen den beiden Kandidaten aus. Die Sendung wurde von 61% des Fernsehpublikums gesehen.
Im Jahr 1993 wurde dieser Vorgang von der Doku Beyond Citizen Kane (hier auf Portugiesisch verfügbar) des Senders Channel 4 aufgegriffen. Der Regisseur Simon Hartog behauptet, Rede Globo habe die Zusammenfassung so zusammengestellt, dass sie Collor bevorteilte. Daraufhin versuchte Rede Globo erfolglos, es dem Sender unter britischer Gerichtsbarkeit zu verbieten, kurze Ausschnitte aus der ursprünglichen Globo-Nachrichtensendung zu verwenden.
Die erste öffentliche Ausstrahlung des Films in Brasilien war 1994 in São Paulo geplant. Jedoch wurde sie unter unklaren Umständen auf Anweisung des damaligen Gouverneurs der Provinz São Paulo annulliert. Während der 1990er-Jahre waren in Brasilien nur wenige Kopien der Sendung im Umlauf. Im Zuge des Internetbooms seit dem Jahr 2000 jedoch wurde der Film im Internet verfügbar gemacht und ist nun weithin bekannt.
Im Jahr 2011 gab, Rede Globos ehemaliger Vice President of Operations, öffentlich zu, dass Roberto Marinho, der Gründer und Eigentümer des Senders, explizite Anweisungen dazu gegeben hatte, eine zu Collors Gunsten manipulierte Zusammenfassung zu senden. Bonifácio Sobrinho vertrat die Meinung, dass es Rede Globus Recht gewesen sei, die Zusammenfassung so zusammen zu stellen, wie der Sender es wünschte. Auf der Internetseite des Unternehmens verteidigt man sich damit, die “gleichen Kriterien verwendet zu haben, die auch bei Zusammenfassungen von Fussballspielen gelten: man nimmt die besten Szenen beider Teams.”
Obwohl der Ausgang der Wahlen nicht alleine diesem Vorfall zugeschrieben werden kann, so wird doch von vielen die Meinung vertreten, dass die einseitige Zusammenfassung die Entscheidung vieler Wähler beeinflusste und zu Collors knappem Sieg über Lula beitrug (49.94% stimmten für Collor, 44.23% für Lula).
reply report Report comment
I think that the right to express one’s opinion – referred to as the freedom of speech – and the freedom of press are to be seen as two different rights or liberties. If a broadcasting company claims to be neutral, which would be the use of the freedom of press it may not support one of several opinions by broadcasting a manipulated montage at the same time. Thus by claiming to be neutral and at the same time supporting Fernando Collor, Rede Globo deceived their spectators – an act which, in my opinion, may have influenced the outcome of the elections in 1989. However there is and should not be any necessity of clearly separating the freedom of press and the freedom of speech – think about what yellow press does every day! The author is right, stating that a company as Rede Globo, even though it is private media, needs a public licence to be legally active. I welcome the idea of legal constraint of manipulation by the media, as long as there is a massive concentration of media ownership. Yet I think one should also keep in mind that constraining the rights of any media company regarding their own material is always an encroachment with the freedom of speech and must therefore be legitimated by outstandingly important reasons. In Brazil of 1989, the need of neutral informative media to allow an unbiased construction of the state would have been such a reason!
reply report Report comment
The media has and will always have a big role in a country’s economy,life,education, and political matters.Fernando Color was the worse president Brazil could ever had in its history.And this conection among Fernando and the broadcasting television Globo further prove.It was a matter of time until this trap started to collapse.After two years running Brazil,brazilians claimed for Fernando’s impeachment.It is clear that Fernando and Globo were focused and seeking only for the money Brazil was making so widely.Fernando brought businesses to Brazil but at the same destroyed Brazil’s economy.Poverty swept Brazil.Media is supposed to inform people wisely,casting well-informed news and not being controled by government decisions.
reply report Report comment
Grande parte das pessoas sao manipuladas pelo que esta na midia no momento. Muitas pessoas acabam nao expressando ou melhor dizendo nem pensando em uma opiniao propria . Entao fica meu comentario e a dica nem sempre seja tao influenciado pela midia .
reply report Report comment
A mídia tem, e sempre vai ter, uma grande influência nos tele-espectadores, principalmente se for uma importante midia como a Rede Globo. Na minha opinião ela influenciou na votação de 1989. O jeito que a edição foi feita, foi em prol do Collor, sem duvidas nenhuma. Ainda mais o fato de ser apenas 2 dias antes das eleições, que induz os tele-espectadores que poderiam estar com duvida em quem votar, a votar no candidato que falou melhor, que deu incentivos para um Brasil melhor.
reply report Report comment
In my opinion this case is yet another example of what media ownership can do and its ability to distort or provide news from angles that are completely to their advantage and benefits. As the author stated If Rede Globo was exercising free speech then it is entitled to support the candidate of their choice. However, I think one has to consider how Rede Globo is the biggest channel in Brasil and the most reliable one by the population. When they claimed they were being neutral by choosing the best moments of each candidate in the debate I think they stated that in order to abstain themselves from further problems. The broadcast of this debate was watched by many many people and strategically releasing it just 2 days before the election seems like a strategy to sway voters to vote for Collor and not Lula. By having the debate only 2 days before the elections it made peoples agenda setting be focused on Collor and with the short time frame between the debate and the election made it very easily for voters to change their votes. Finally as the margin between the two candidates was very small, the debate in my opinion could have heavily contributed to Collor being elected and this case just proves how corporations and media are able to influence on things as greatly as politics and who is in power in a country.