Not in my domain!

“Não Bota no Meu” Song by Jair Rodrigues

The decision by the full bench of the Federal Supreme Court regarding the possible liability of the press for statements made by interviewees caused a huge stir in the Brazilian media. As soon as the decision was handed down, a myriad of critical comments from the main media outlets flooded the news.

They address the issue with constant diatribes. Their aggressive approach is curious. They talk about censorship, the end of a free press, the end of live reporting, dictatorial control, legal uncertainty, a dark chapter, attacks on freedom of information, and even the conspiracy theory that this decision, combined with the appointment of Flávio Dino and Cristiano Zanin to the Supreme Court, is a form of coup by the left to seize power without the press being able to play its critical role.

The outcry is clearly disproportionate. It is typical of the misanthropic behavior of the media, which, however commendable its contribution to democracy may be—and it is—is not immune to the poor quality of what it produces.

The press has never been self-critical about its role. Nowadays, with the wide reach of news, a malicious or irresponsible publication can cause irreparable damage. It can even drive people to suicide.

Little has been seen, for example, of remorse for the admittedly irresponsible conduct of the press in Operation Car Wash, for the support given to the military dictatorship in Brazil, or for the scandal at the São Paulo elementary school. It interprets the full freedom of action described in the Federal Constitution as immunity. In other words, while the whole of society is dancing to the tune of rules and accountability, the press is the improvised melody of freedom without consequences.

The fact is that I do not believe that the STF's decision has limited the serious practice of journalism. The thesis issued by the Supreme Court limits cases subject to liability to situations in which "at the time of the interview's publication, it was already known from concrete evidence that the accusation was false and the company failed in its duty of care to verify the veracity of the facts and to disclose that the accusation was controversial." The decision, therefore, refers to false accusations of crimes and a failure to exercise due diligence in verifying the truth of the facts. These are basic requirements of good journalism. (See article on the objectivity in journalism.)

The press claims that it cannot control what interviewees say. That is not quite true. It chooses the interviewee and the format of the interview. And there are already internal control mechanisms in place for everything the press publishes or broadcasts. It would be naive to think that journalists' work is not subject to scrutiny in terms of the agenda selected, the editorial line, commercial interests, and the final edit before publication.

And if the problem is live interviews, there are remedies that can be implemented. I cite as an example another case that occurred in the same week. In an interview with Jovem Pan, journalist Paula Schmitt made fatphobic and racist comments to the Minister of Justice and a CNN journalist. The program's anchor immediately intervened and repudiated the interviewee's conduct, making it clear that the media outlet did not condone what was said live on air. This type of intervention, combined with a note from the interviewer stating that "the media outlet cannot attest to the veracity of the statements made by the interviewee, which are not necessarily true," can and should be adopted in live interviews. In political debates, there is already a lot of intervention by the mediating journalist in this regard, even granting the offended party the immediate right of reply.

This unique treatment that the press desires for the exercise of its profession reminds us of George Orwell in his famous book Animal Farm, in which he satirizes the nature of authority, power, and equality in society. Orwell coined the famous phrase, "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

In practice, this decision will only impact those outlets known for producing poor journalism, and is therefore beneficial to the profession. Corroborating my perception, we find the editorials of the newspapers O Globo and Estadão on December 1, 2023.

In these times of abundant fake news and uncontrolled information, it is no exaggeration to demand caution in what is disclosed. The recent case of FOX News, a powerful American media empire that confessed to broadcasting false news during the 2020 US election process and paid US$787.5 million to settle the lawsuit, sheds light on the importance of reviewing certain behaviors. Censorship is never the answer. Responsibility for what is produced is essential.