Au delà de Citizen Kane, un documentaire sur la campagne brésilienne de 1989 affirme que le producteur Rede Globo a manipulé un montage en faveur de l’un des candidats restants, explique Felipe Correa.
Exposition des faits
En 1989, le Brésil a eu sa première élection démocratique depuis 29 ans, après une dictature militaire. On deuxième tour, qui était aussi le dernier, deux candidats se disputaient la président de la nouvelle république: Lula da Silva et Fernando Collor. Deux jours avant l’élection, Rede Globo, de loin la télévision la plus populaire du Brésil, diffusa un montage du débat final entre les deux candidats pendant le pic d’audience au moment des nouvelles, pour atteindre 61% de parts de marchés.
En 1993, cet événement fut débattu sur Channel 4 par un documentaire, “Plus loin que Citoyen Kane” (à voir ici en portugais). Le directeur Simon Hartog clame que Rede Globo a manipulé le montage en faveur de Collor. En réponse, Rede Globo intenta une action en justice contre Channel 4 dans le cadre de la loi britannique évoquant l’interdiction de Channel 4 d’utiliser des extraits des programmes de Globo sans permission.
La première diffusion du film au Brésil devait avoir lieu en 1994, mais fut mystérieusement annulé par ordre du gouverneur de l’état. Au cours des années 1990, des copies du documentaire ont été publiées à exemplaires limités au Brésil. Cependant, avec la bulle internet des années 2000, le film fut téléchargé par les internautes et est maintenant largement accessible.
En 2011, José Bonifácio Sobrinho, l’ancien vice-président de Rede Globo affirma ouvertement que Roberto Marinho, le fondateur et propriétaire de l’organisation avait donné un ordre explicite de diffuser un montage en faveur de Collor. Bonifácio Sobrinho expliqua que Rede Globo était libre d’éditer le débat comme ils l’entendaient. Sur son site web officiel, Rede Globo se défendit disant qu’ils utilisèrent “les mêmes critères auxquels ils avaient recours pour les match de football: sélectionner les meilleurs moments de chacune des équipes.”
Malgré que l’issue des élection ne puisse être entièrement attribuée à cet épisode, nombreux sont ceux qui ont affirmé que le montage avait influé sur la décision de beaucoup d’électeurs, et qu’il avait contribué à la victoire de Collor contre Lula, notamment du fait de la faible différence de part des votes: 49.94% pour Collor, 44.23% pour 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.