Rede Globoと1989年ブラジル大統領選

1989年のブラジル大統領選についてのドキュメンタリーBeyond Citizen Kaneはテレビ会社Rede Globoが候補者の一人を優位にみせるようモンタージュを操作したと主張しているとFelipe Correaが伝えます。


1989年ブラジルは29年間の独裁政権時代を経て、初の民主選挙に至りました。二次ラウンドと最終ラウンドで、Lula da Silva と Fernando Collorの二人の候補者は新たな民主共和国の大統領になるために争っていました。選挙の二日前、ブラジルで最も人気のあるテレビ局であるRede Globoは、視聴率61パーセントを獲得した夜のニュース番組にて二人の候補者の最後のディベートのモンタージュを放映しました。

1993年Channel 4のドキュメンタリーBeyond Citizen Kaneポルトガル語で視聴可能) はこの出来事を取り上げました。ディレクターであるSimon HartogはRede GloboがCollorを優位に見せるようモンタージュを操作したと主張しました。それに応えてRede GloboはChannel 4がGloboの番組の抜粋を許可なしに使ったとしてイギリス法の下無理のある訴えを起こそうとしました。

このドキュメンタリーの最初のブラジルでのスクリーニングはサンパウロで1994年に行われる予定でしたが、州知事の命令により不思議なことにキャ ンセルされました。1990年代後期、同ドキュメンタリーは制限的にブラジルで発売されました。しかしながら、2000年代のインターネットブーム以降、 ネチズンによりアップロードされ、今は広くアクセス可能になっています。

2011年Rede Globoオペレーションの元副会長José Bonifácio Sobrinhoは同テレビ局の創設者であるRoberto MarinhoがCollorを優位にみせるよう操作されたモンタージュを放送するように明確な指示を出したと公に認めました。Rede Globoに討論を編集する自由があったとBonifácio Sobrinhoは主張しました。Rede Globoの公式ホームページは、「サッカーゲームの編集に使うのと同じ編集条件を使用した。それぞれのチームの一番よい場面を見せたのみだ。」とコメン トし自らを弁護しました

選挙結果はこの出来事に完全に左右されたわけではないですが、たくさんの有権者がこの操作されたモンタージュに影響され、Collorがわずかな差 でLulaに勝利したことを考えるとまったく関係がなかったとは言えないかもしれないと論ずる人々が多数います。Collorは49.94%、Lulaは 44.23%の票を獲得しました。


理論上、民営メディアは法律の範囲内なら なんでも放送できるべきです。しかし、ブラジルは当時も今もメディアの所有権が少数の手に非常に集中しており、多様で代替的なメディアが存在しないという ことを特記する必要があります。そのようなコンテクストの中、数少ないテレビ局が世論に多大なインパクトを与えます。Rede Globoがある候補者への支持を自由に表現する自由があったと弁護することもできます。しかしながら、同テレビ局は中立的立場を取っていたと主張したに も関わらず、国民のほとんどに知れ渡ったモンタージュを操作した上、故意に選挙の二日前にそれを放送しました。

Rede Globoは民営放送会社ですが、法的活動をするには公的ライセンスを必要としています。私の考えを言うと、ブラジルにおけるメディア所有権の集中を踏ま え、放送会社はこのように歪曲した形で公益の一部である討論を自由に編集するべきではないと思います。また、メディア所有権の集中は、有権者が情報に富ん だ意思決定ができるようもっとオープンで多様なメディアを助長する法律によって改革されるべきでしょう。

- Felipe Correa


コメント (5)


  1. 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!

  2. 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.

  3. 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 .

  4. 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.

  5. 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.



Swipe left to browse all of the highlights.