DCM: Rosario vs. Kamel is a penny against a million.

247 - Journalist Paulo Nogueira, editor of Diário do Centro do Mundo, criticized on Saturday, the 21st, the legal dispute provoked by Globo's director of television journalism, Ali Kamel, against blogger Miguel do Rosário, editor of the website O Cafezinho.

"It's a million against a penny," Nogueira summarized. According to the DCM journalist, it's much easier for a judge to decide in favor of the Globo representative, regardless of the merits of the case. "Who wants to displease Globo? What judge isn't afraid of retaliation? And for whom is it easier to hire the best lawyer in town?" he questioned. 

Miguel do Rosário was ordered to pay R$ 20 in damages to Ali Kamel for calling him a "scoundrel".

"Even with the modest resources of her blog, Rosário did more than Kamel with all the power that Globo gives him. The revelation, by Cafezinho, of Globo's tax evasion during the 2002 World Cup is worth more than anything Kamel has written or edited in his entire career," said Nogueira. 

Read the full post by Paulo Nogueira, from DCM.

The unequal contest between Ali Kamel and Miguel do Rosário

There is a fundamental injustice in a legal battle involving the director of television news at Globo and a blogger.

It's a million against a penny.

All circumstances are in favor of big guy. It's much easier for a judge to decide in favor of the Globo employee, regardless of the merits of the case.

Who wants to upset Globo? What judge isn't afraid of retaliation? And for whom is it easier to hire the best lawyer in town?

It's an extraordinarily unequal situation.

Having said all that, all my sympathies naturally go to Miguel do Rosário, from Cafezinho, in the legal battle he was forced into by Ali Kamel, from Globo.

Of course Kamel has the right to defend himself if he feels his honor has been offended. But is "scoundrel," as Rosario called Kamel, really that offensive?

The best synonym for scoundrel is hypocrite. Does that justify Kamel's anger?

There is a problem in the Brazilian justice system, which is its handling of high-profile cases. There is complete inconsistency in the sentences.

Rosário was ordered to pay 20,000 reais – plus another 10,000 in legal expenses – for the “scoundrel”. (Rosário was forced to do a crowdfunding campaign to pay the bill. Anyone who wants to contribute, click here.) here.)

Augusto Nunes, from Veja magazine, was acquitted after calling Collor a bandit, gang leader, and things of that nature.

It was no use for Collor to have stated in his lawsuit that he had been acquitted by the same Supreme Court that Nunes and other conservative columnists had so flattered in the Mensalão scandal.

Why was Rosário convicted and Nunes acquitted? Is it simply a coincidence that both cases were won by high-ranking officials from major media companies?

In a less imperfect world, everyone would be equal before the law. But in Brazil, regrettably, Ali Kamel is more equal than Miguel do Rosário.

From a purely journalistic standpoint, there is a curious situation.

Despite the modest resources of her blog, Rosário accomplished more than Kamel did with all the power Globo gives him.

The revelation, by Cafezinho, of Globo's tax evasion during the 2002 World Cup is worth more than anything Kamel has written or edited in his entire career.

The Cafezinho scoop revealed the "scoundrel-like" soul – to use Rosário's adjective – not only of Globo but of the Brazilian media as a whole.

Globo's delinquency was compounded by the abject cowardice of newspapers, magazines, and columnists.

Folha, without giving any explanation, avoided the subject after publishing a note. Its ombudsman never touched on the matter, which also shows the narrow limits of internal criticism.

I believe that, in the future, when Kamel and Rosario are evaluated, the verdict will be as follows.

Rosário helped society understand the spirit of the media. And Kamel was the one who wrote a book to prove that Brazil is not racist.