Caetano supports Chico in his criticism of the press.
In an article published in the newspaper O Globo, the singer reinforces his colleague's accusation, whose interview excerpt was suppressed by Folha because it referred to death squads in the newsroom of 'Última Hora' in São Paulo, owned by Frias: "And we are always the censors"; and defends his ex-wife Paula Lavigne; "(...) she was chosen by the board members because of her ability to get things done."
247- The controversy surrounding unauthorized biographies continues to generate discussion. Now it was Caetano Veloso's turn to defend Chico Buarque in an article in the newspaper O Globo. The singer went after the press, refuting the accusation that artists were acting as censors in the case. "And today's 'Folha', in publishing the article where I respond to Roberto Carlos' biographer, omitted the paragraph in which I mentioned the death squads in the newsroom of 'Última Hora' in São Paulo, owned by Frias. And we are always the censors."
Caetano also defended his manager and ex-wife, Paula Lavigne. The insults and distortions cannot hide the fact that her beauty, charisma, and sincerity gave life to the TV program (Saia Justa, on GNT) that she was on. And it is her courage that leads her to put herself out there. Our mistakes were picked up and artificially connected to disqualify us.
Read full from the article
Chico, Paula and I
Chico himself drew Procure Saber's attention to the fact that taking a joint position could cause principled problems for some or all of us. Those who report on gossip columns don't always know what's said in meetings.
The issue of biographies has always been essential to Chico. If I understand correctly, he's more interested in that than in Ecad or Procure Saber. Any insinuation of bargaining with Roberto Carlos for him to support changes in the collective management of royalties is unfair to all of us—but especially to Chico. Respect for people's private lives—which is what motivates Pedro Cardoso in his public statements—has always been a theme close to Chico's heart and expressed in clear speeches. Chico himself drew Procure Saber's attention to the fact that taking a joint position could cause principled problems for some or all of us. Those who report on gossip columns don't always know what's said in meetings. Here's what Chico tells me now: “More than the issue of Roberto Carlos's privacy, I wanted to take his side against the attacks from the press all these years. I also took a beating from the entire press 20 years ago for criticizing the country's music criticism. For that, I was called a censor, authoritarian, and even a Stalinist. This time, at least, I had the pleasure of speaking in GLOBO, without contestation, about the spontaneous censorship of TV Globo in the 70s. And today's 'Folha', in publishing the article where I respond to Roberto Carlos's biographer, omitted the paragraph where I mentioned the death squads in the newsroom of 'Última Hora' in São Paulo, owned by Frias. And we are always the censors.”
I need to clarify that I don't think there can be unauthorized biographies of politicians but not of artists. I recognize that there is a difference, the prime example of which is information about the health of a head of state: it was wrong for the Venezuelan government to conceal the truth about Hugo Chávez's health. However, saying that I want unauthorized biographies of Sarney or Roberto Marinho but I suffer seeing Gloria Perez facing a book written by her daughter's murderer only means that I tend to want biographies to be free, but, if information about Collor or Jango stimulates this inclination, cases like Gloria's draw my attention to the other side of the conflict. These are the two giants that Paula Lavigne spoke of on "Saia Justa": on one side, freedom of information; on the other, the right to privacy. In any case, Marinho was not a politician.
Half a page of the “Folha” newspaper displayed, under my image, the word “caetaneando” to promote a project by the group that controls the Teatro Folha. It was a “workshop” that charged those who enrolled R$ 3.600. I asked them to stop. They came back with text that says “it’s not a biography”.
It's telling that I, of all people, appear so frequently in these arguments. And that everything has ultimately fallen on Paula Lavigne. Paula was chosen by the board members because of her ability to get things done. She's not there because she's my manager or because she was my wife. It's almost in spite of that. Only Paulo Nogueira, editor of the website Diário do Centro do Mundo, did her justice. The insults and distortions cannot hide the fact that her beauty, her charisma, and her sincerity gave life to the TV program she was on. And it is her courage that leads her to put herself out there. Our mistakes were fished out and artificially connected to disqualify us. But she and I, with our private problems, can be a useful public force, even in disagreement about the core of the discussion. O GLOBO embarrassed! By Chico or by me? I believe his affair with TV Globo is an undeniable fact. And my opinion on the article about vandals and teachers is that it was indeed biased. Bios?: Francisco, Wisnik, and Mautner speak for me (note that the three don't say the same thing: Bosco: privacy; Mautner: futurology; Wisnik: free voices).