环球电视台与巴西大选

Felipe Correa认为,反映1989年巴西选举的纪录片《继公民凯恩之后》表明环球广播公司操纵蒙太奇镜头以支持仅剩的两位候选人中的一个。

1989年,军人独裁时代结束后,巴西举行了29年来第一次民主选举。在第二轮和最后一轮,两位候选人卢拉·达·席尔瓦(Lula da Silva)和费尔南多·科罗尔(Fernando Collor)为这个新兴的民主共和国的总统职位进行了激烈辩论。大选前两天,巴西当时最普及的广播电视公司环球电视台黄金时间播放了两位候选人的一段最终辩论的片子,达到了61%的收视率。

1993年,这一事件在四频道的《公民凯恩之后》(点击这里看葡萄牙文)纪录片栏目中被拿出来讨论。导演西蒙·哈托格(Simon Hartog)坚持认为,环球电视公司操纵了蒙太奇镜头以支持科罗尔。作为回应,环球电视公司试图质疑四频道在未经环球电视允许的情况下断章取义,在英国法律面前是否具有合法性。

该片第一次公开放映是1994年在圣保罗,但后来在州长的命令下又被秘密地取消了。九十年代末期,该纪录片的拷贝在巴西只是限制发行,然而在2000年之后,随着因特网的兴起,该片被网民上传得到处都是。

2011年,环球电视公司前执行副总裁何塞·邦尼法齐奥·索布里诺(José Bonifácio Sobrinho)公开证实,该组织的创始人和拥有者罗伯特·马力诺(Roberto Marinh)曾给出过明确的指示,播放经过精心策划的蒙太奇镜头以支持科罗尔。邦尼法齐奥·索布里诺表示,环球电视公司对那场辩论的编辑方式是随心所欲的。在其官方网站,环球电视为自己辩护,说他们使用的“编辑标准与足球赛使用的编辑标准是一样的:选择各队的精彩瞬间。”

虽然大选的结果还不能完全归咎于这一插曲,但许多人争辩道,操控蒙太奇影响了许多选民的决定,它或许帮助科罗尔战胜了卢拉。双方的票数相差很小,科罗尔赢得49.94%的选票,卢拉赢得44.23%的选票

继续阅读:


评论 (5)

读者须知:自动翻译由Google翻译提供,虽然可以反映作者大意,但不一定能提供精准的译意。

  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.

以任何语言评论

精选内容

向左划动浏览所有精选内容


“言论自由大讨论”是牛津大学圣安东尼学院达伦多夫自由研究计划下属的学术项目。

牛津大学