"Veja magazine owes the country an explanation," says the president of Fenaj.

Samir Oliveira - Sul 21 - The Parliamentary Inquiry Commission (CPI) conducted by the National Congress to investigate the influence of illegal gambling operator Carlinhos Cachoeira on public power has sparked a debate as unexpected as it is necessary in the country: the relationship between the media and the spheres of power, whether political or economic.

The Federal Police identified approximately 200 telephone conversations between the director of the Brasília branch of Veja magazine, Policarpo Júnior, and the racketeer. The release of these wiretaps shows that Cachoeira dictated the publication of Abril publishing house, which allowed itself to be swayed by the political interests of a businessman strongly linked to Senator Demóstenes Torres (former DEM).

Given this scenario, some parliamentarians have advocated summoning Policarpo to testify before the CPI (Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry), even though the rapporteur Odair Cunha (PT-MG) has already rejected a request for information on the matter. According to the president of the National Federation of Journalists (Fenaj), Celso Schröder, the magazine needs to explain what guided its journalistic practice in this episode. "Veja has to give explanations to Brazil. It needs to explain how it carries out journalistic activity with these whims, with a lack of commitment and irresponsibility regarding ethical and technical principles enshrined in journalism," he believes.

Sul21 – What can the Cachoeira Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry tell us about the Brazilian media?
Celso Schröder – The Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry (CPI) is showing us that the media is an institution like any other and needs to be subject to public principles, insofar as the raw material of its work is public: information. The less public this institution is and the more it is subject to the private interests of its managers, the more compromised the nature of journalism will be. Like any institution, the media is not above good and evil, the republican precepts of the rule of law, and the public interest. From a political point of view, Veja confused the public with the private. From a journalistic point of view, it commits an unacceptable sin: establishing a promiscuous relationship between the journalist and the source. It is not just a reporter, but the organization, the company's leadership, that conducts and directs a technically reprehensible and ethically unacceptable activity. Every journalist knows, from the first semester of college, that the source is a constituent element of the news insofar as it is treated as a source. The source has vested interests, and to prevent these from contaminating the nature of the information, they need to be filtered by the mediator, which is the journalist. While the source lends credibility and constitutes an element of plurality to the story, on the other hand, if not mediated and contextualized by the journalist, it can contaminate the content.

Sul21 – At what points did the relationship between Policarpo Júnior and Cachoeira go beyond a healthy relationship between reporter and source?
Schroder – He didn't treat Cachoeira as a source. The problem is a journalist or a journalistic company attributing to someone the dimension of a unique source, negotiating with them the content and scope of the story and, mainly, leading Veja towards acting as a political party. This is a sin that Veja has been committing for some time. The opposition in Brazil is very weak. Because there is no strong opposition, the press assumes this role, which is an absolute distortion. The press doesn't have to assume this function; society doesn't attribute to it a political-partisan dimension, as Veja proposes. Veja has just given us one of the worst moments in journalism. When the episode of the attempted invasion of former minister José Dirceu's (PT) apartment by a Veja reporter occurred, I wrote an article saying that, just as Watergate had been the great moment of journalism in the world, Veja's actions in Dirceu's room were an anti-Watergate. Little did I know that we would have an even worse moment. It wasn't the individual action of a reporter without the capacity for evaluation. It was a premeditated and systematic action by a communications company, by a boss who guided his reporter towards an immoral act, dangerously bordering on illegality.

Sul21 – Can the same be said for the recent episode between Policarpo Júnior and Cachoeira?
Schröder - At this moment, this is becoming consolidated. It's a magazine that is jeopardizing the very raw material of its existence: credibility. It seems to me like suicide, even from the point of view of a journalistic business. Unless Veja is relying on another type of funding, or is already being subsidized by another mechanism that doesn't stem from credibility and audience engagement. We don't have concrete data on this, but everything suggests that, at this moment, Veja's funding is coming from another source. The magazine's unscrupulous commitment and alignment with a particular worldview leads to the idea that Veja may have given up being a media outlet to become a political instrument funded by this field.

Sul21 – But the magazine has gone through periods when it was more committed to journalism. How did this change occur?
Schroder – It's not a recent phenomenon that Veja has been showing signs of abandoning its role as a leading journalist. Veja was fundamental to the redemocratization of the country, it was a reference for journalists of several generations, and it had men like Mino Carta and Alberto Dines at its helm. After a certain time, the magazine began to align itself with a specific Brazilian social group. Of course, the magazine's editors have opinions and play a conservative role in the country. It's fine that this happens in editorial terms. However, informative journalism should be given space for discussion with counterpoints. Elementary principles of journalism have been abandoned, and this magazine, which was important for democracy and for journalism, has become a bad example that needs to be confronted.

Sul21 – How do you view the possibility of Policarpo Júnior being summoned to testify before the CPI?
Schroder – I have seen statements from some politicians, such as Senator Ana Amélia Lemos (PP-RS), who says that Policarpo's involvement in this represents an attack on the press. Journalists are not above the law and cannot be above republican principles. If he is summoned by the CPI (Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry), he has the right not to go. If he goes, he has the right to exercise the prerogative of source confidentiality. But the summons does not represent a threat. Veja magazine has to give explanations to Brazil. It needs to explain how it carries out journalistic activity with these whims, with a lack of commitment and irresponsibility in relation to ethical and technical principles enshrined in journalism. Questioning this is fundamental. Journalists and academia have an obligation to raise these questions.

Sul21 – In that sense, wouldn't it also be valid to summon the president of Grupo Abril, Roberto Civita?
Schroder – It seems like shifting the focus of the problem. In the CPI (Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry), Veja magazine is one of the points of contention. The problem is the corruption between Cachoeira and the Brazilian Parliament. A testimony from Civita would generate a debate that would divert the work of the CPI. There is no doubt that Veja practiced bad journalism and must be held accountable. The CPI has recordings of members of the magazine with the illegal gambling operator. Let them be summoned, then. Bringing the head of Veja's Brasília bureau to testify is no small matter.

Sul21 – Criticisms of Veja magazine are often countered with arguments that highlight the supposedly investigative work done by the magazine, with its numerous corruption allegations. However, the recordings between Policarpo and Cachoeira reveal how the scheme behind some of these allegations worked.
Schroder – There's a certain feeling that we're living through a moment of absolute corruption in the country. And that's far from the truth. Just look at history and see that we now have functioning democratic institutions. The press plays an important democratic and oversight role by denouncing corruption. The problem is that some sectors, when making denunciations, attribute an absolute role to the idea of ​​corruption. In the case of Veja magazine, the worst thing is that the magazine itself was involved. It's not just bad journalism being practiced. There are dangerous indications of enrichment – ​​which doesn't necessarily have to be financial. It could be an exchange of favors, where what Veja gained was the construction of arguments for political, not journalistic, action. As if it were the political party that the opposition can't be. If the press proposes this kind of thing, it reverts to an 18th-century level of action. If that's how it's going to be, the magazine should change its name and align itself with a particular party. Now, in presenting itself as an informative space, Veja needs to reflect the complexity of the Brazilian political landscape. If she doesn't do that, she's compromising journalism and skirting the possibility of illegality which, if it exists, needs to be clarified. Fenaj will not protect criminal journalists.

Sul21 – The revelation of Veja's modus operandi is generating an almost unprecedented discussion in the country: the media is debating the media. Carta Capital magazine has dedicated several covers to the topic, and Record has already done a report on the subject. It's a common phenomenon in other countries, but until now it hadn't occurred in Brazil.
Schroder – In the 1980s, when Fenaj proposed a line for the democratization of communication, we started from the understanding that the democratization of the country had not managed to reach the media. The Brazilian media system, unlike all other institutions, had not been democratized. We have five articles of the Constitution in this area that are not regulated. For 30 years we have had several initiatives to try to build this debate. The logic of regulation exists in all countries of the world. But, in Brazil, this faces resistance from a powerful media, which produced the first two presidents of the Republic after democratization. Sarney and Collor are two politicians who came from the ranks of Rede Globo. In the presidency of Congress we had other protégés of Rede Globo, such as Antonio Carlos Magalhães, who was also Minister of Communications. The media is not only concentrated, in the sense of having monopolies, but it is also devoid of any public control. It is absolutely surrendered to the idea that freedom of expression is the freedom of expression of the media owners. While the constitutional precept states that freedom of expression belongs to the people, and the role of the media is to ensure this.

Sul21 – How much progress has been made in this debate since then?
Schroder – We've been guiding this debate for 30 years, culminating in Confecom (National Communication Conference, held in December 2009). Fenaj (National Federation of Journalists) has managed to establish the idea that this debate needs to be public, since it's omitted by the media, which attributes this discussion to an attempt at censorship. Confecom initially had the support of the companies. I went with representatives from RBS and Globo to Ministers Helio Costa (Communications), Tarso Genro (Justice), and Luiz Dulci (General Secretariat of the Presidency) to propose the conference. The companies understood that, at that moment, telephony was arriving and threatening a business model. But, during Confecom, Rede Globo and all its allies withdrew, trying to sabotage the debate once again. The conservative spirit is in Rede Globo's DNA. It has become accustomed to the idea that there should be no rules for its business. It has become accustomed to imposing its interests on the country and, therefore, is ontologically against any rule. The moment Globo withdrew from Confecom made it clear that it is not possible to count on these businessmen for any attempt to give communication in Brazil a public, human, and national dimension, governed by cultural, democratic, and educational principles, not simply by easy and quick profit.

Sul21 – Is the editorial in the newspaper O Globo defending Veja magazine an indication of a very strong corporatism among the owners of traditional media?
Schroder – The principle that unites them is the one verbalized by the Inter-American Press Association: No law is better than no law. Companies aligned with the idea that they cannot be subject to the law protect themselves. Sheltered under the cloak of a freedom of expression appropriated by them, they protect their interests and their businesses, acting in a corporate and anti-public manner. Journalism is the fruit of a professional activity, not the fruit of a business. Journalism is not the sale of advertisements. Journalism is, essentially, the result of the work of journalists. Therefore, the obligation of journalists is to denounce whenever journalism is tainted, as happened with Veja. It would also be an obligation of journalistic companies, insofar as they are not involved with this type of practice. By becoming complicit and covering up this type of practice, the companies ally themselves with them. These companies compete in the market, but protect themselves in what they consider essential ways, in order to undermine the idea that they carry out an activity subject to public interests, like any other.