To hell with all scruples!
What the Public Prosecutor's Office and the Federal Police can only do with judicial authorization, Carlinhos Cachoeira was doing shamelessly, and Veja magazine feasted on it.
History records the famous phrase of the then Minister of Labor during the dictatorship, Jarbas Passarinho, at the birth of AI-5: "To hell with all scruples of conscience, Mr. President, at this moment." With the same license claimed by Veja magazine and the fellow journalists who wrote the text related to the cover, anyone can feel free to write, for example, that Passarinho's phrase was remembered amidst laughter in the editors' conversations during the closing of the edition that is on newsstands. So, to hell with all scruples of conscience? That can be anything but journalism.
It is fundamental that the established order guarantees everyone the freedom to think, express themselves, and demonstrate without restrictions. But with regard to freedom of the press, in respect for the memory of colleagues like Vladimir Herzog, journalists have a special duty to uphold a fundamental principle of any self-respecting democracy. The collective success of journalists in fulfilling their social role depends on the balanced use of freedom of the press. Perhaps we can dispense with written codes, but it is essential that we have some clarity about standards of conduct. Any excesses committed ultimately become attacks against freedom of the press.
The reference to the fateful meeting that institutionalized censorship and political repression is not mere provocation. Not all aggression against the free press comes from governments or any agent external to the mass media. In this case, the attack comes from one of the largest newsrooms in the country. Constitutional precepts were being violated by the actions of spies hired by a man accused of leading illegal activities, and the result of these violations filled page after page of the magazine. What the Public Prosecutor's Office and the Federal Police can only do with judicial authorization, Carlinhos Cachoeira was doing shamelessly, and Veja magazine feasted on it.
It's reasonable that Dr. Roberto Civita's magazine defends its unorthodox—one might say Murdoch-esque—methods of obtaining information. It's laughable that it attempts to do so while simultaneously denying the country the whole truth about the scale of a vast and far-reaching corruption scheme. Veja tries to convince Brazil that it's nothing more than a diversionary tactic by the government, underestimating the intelligence of even the most anti-PT (Workers' Party) reader.
I will defend to the death the right of Dr. Roberto Civita's magazine to say whatever it wants, but treating "that" as a news report is an offense to the profession. Freedom of the press is not a panacea to justify anything.