Globo has made its message clear: it is campaigning against Dilma.

By Ricardo Amaral

The interview with President Dilma Rousseff exposed, with rare forcefulness, Globo's bias in its coverage of the government and the PT (Workers' Party). Using the cunning of someone who has endured torture, Dilma demolished Globo's attempt to appear "impartial" in this chapter of the elections. This is no small matter, especially at a time when the credibility of the mainstream press remains shaken by the historic fiasco of "Operation World Cup."

The credibility of Globo's journalism was once again tarnished by the grimaces of William Bonner and Patrícia Poeta. Their expressions of displeasure, raised fingers, and rude interruptions spoke more to the viewer than the content of the questions and answers. For some time, anything said on the Jornal Nacional (JN) against Dilma will be received with suspicion, because the program's strongest message was: they don't like her. 

Of the 16 minutes allotted, Dilma spoke for 10 and a half minutes; Bonner, 4 and a half minutes; and Patrícia almost 1 minute. That's 65% for her and 35% for them. Dilma uttered 1.383 words, compared to 980 by the pair (766 by Bonner alone), which gives a 60% x 40% difference. This is a debate score, not an interview score. The pair made 26 accusations against the government and the PT; some with exclamation points.

In the four thematic blocks (corruption, mensalão scandal, health, and economy), Bonner raised 13 question marks, and Patrícia, two. The president was interrupted 19 times. She was pointed in the face by Bonner and Patrícia, who complained about an answer with a light punch on the table. This is not journalistic behavior. In the interview with Aécio Neves – which many found "tough," although it was merely predictable – the pair made four interruptions and five reiterations of questions.

I also learned that the secret to a live interview is mastering the subject and looking for the next question in the interviewee's answer. It's a difficult art. Patrícia Poeta never knew how to do it. Bonner thinks he knows – and that he knows a lot. That's why he did even worse than his colleague. Just disagreeing with the statement is enough to throw them off balance. They don't know what they're talking about; they follow the script and put on a shrewd face (with Dilma, they used an earpiece!). 

Bad interviewers are incapable of listening to answers and engaging with the interviewee's arguments. It's not just amateurism; it's presumption. Globo executives consider themselves more important than the candidates. They think they are the news themselves. When faced with contradiction, they repeat the question until they lose their train of thought. Ultimately, they resort to the binary formula: "I say this; yes or no?" Eduardo Campos handled this argument with drunkards very well. Aécio stumbled and fell. 

For Globo, it matters little to expose the editor-in-chief and assistant editor of JN to yet another professional embarrassment. Globo doesn't want to hear answers; it wants to repeat (and try to sanction) its own discourse. Bonner must have rehearsed at home what he considered his moment of glory: calling the PT members involved in the Mensalão scandal corrupt ("They were corrupt!"), right in the face of the President of the Republic. What audacity, huh, boss…

In the first question (69 seconds), the word corruption was repeated seven times; and that's all there is to it. After 12 years ("more than a decade, candidate!") there are "long lines at hospitals," citizens "often treated on stretchers," and "often unable to get a diagnostic test." The country has "high inflation, industries with high inventories, and the threat of unemployment looming." 

Repeating the mantras of negative news reports – without actually opening a discussion about them – was the first task. The second was to disconcert the interviewee, and that's when the bomb exploded in the interviewers' laps. Dilma didn't give up on answering the questions, picking up the thread of the conversation after each interruption. Warned, she played dumb and continued answering as she pleased.

The game was boring most of the time, but Dilma didn't give up possession of the ball, she didn't relinquish control of the interview. And it was William and Patrícia who were visibly disconcerted, to the point of losing respect for the interviewee – who deserved it, even if she wasn't the president of the Republic.

Dilma did not tell the interrogators what they wanted her to say, except to agree with Patrícia Poeta that "the health situation in the country is not even minimally reasonable." A single point lost was all they managed to extract from the interrogated woman. Therefore, the highlight on Globo's websites was Dilma's predictable silence regarding the Mensalão trial – further evidence that they consider their questions more important than the President's answers.

Any analyst will say that the president wasted the opportunity to be more assertive in her government's propaganda. Fifteen minutes on the Jornal Nacional (JN) is a great chance to speak to millions of voters, but Dilma preferred to debate with Patrícia Poeta and William Bonner. 

She provided relevant information: July's inflation was close to zero; the Mais Médicos program serves 50 million people; the SAMU (Mobile Emergency Care Service) serves 149 million. She said the country is facing the crisis without layoffs, without wage cuts, and even by reducing taxes. She could have said much more, but the debate was more focused on form than content. And that's where Dilma won.

Dilma smiled appropriately and remained serene throughout the program. She displayed the demeanor of a President of the Republic, which contrasted, in the eyes of viewers, with the disrespectful and unprofessional attitude of the interviewers. Even though it was confined to a televised ceremony, it was a relevant signal to a press increasingly eager to play the role of opposition: say what you will, but respect the elected president of all Brazilians.