Look who's talking!

I watch these journalists attacking each other and I think: who in the country is discussing the bullet train? The nuclear submarine? The Brazilian satellite? The Trans-Amazonian Highway? The illegal mining?

No, the topic now is the "media CPI" and who Leonardo and Policarpo are talking to in Machiavellian phone calls. Honestly, I think this whole media CPI thing is self-cannibalism by the press and a waste of time. But, I confess: I also read the gossip.

The 247 website, which claims to be a space where "it's possible to agree or disagree, at the same time, with names like Reinaldo Azevedo, Luís Nassif, or Paulo Henrique Amorim. After all, we don't have labels, we don't have prejudices, and we're neither JEGs nor PIGs. We are free," harshly criticized Policarpo from Veja magazine because he habitually spoke with Carlinhos Cachoeira on the phone.

But Leonardo Attuch got a taste of his own medicine when Mino Pedrosa revealed that he frequently chatted with none other than Daniel Dantas and Naji Nahas, for whom he allegedly acted as a kind of front man. Policarpo, in turn, was merely a lackey in Cachoeira's most sordid intentions.

Reinaldo Azevedo (vilified for speaking with Demosthenes) asks:

"By the way: is 247 so libertarian as to publish articles by Mino Pedrosa, or does pluralism only extend as far as Delúbio Soares and José Dirceu?"

It's a dishonest question coming from him, who only posts what suits him in the comments, but it's still a question. By the way, they could consider the idea of ​​an ombudsman here.

Now, anyone with even a modicum of common sense knows that neither Leonardo nor Policarpo are as dense as they seem. It just so happens that there's something passionate about loving or hating certain media outlets, as if they were the embodiment of subservience or salvationism. People on the left tend to hate Veja with unrestrained hatred, as if they weren't capable of producing a single unbiased or even well-written paragraph there.

The other side doesn't help, because Reinaldo treats everyone who disagrees with him as "those people," and employing Mainardi doesn't exactly make the movie in the magazine work.

Furthermore, why wouldn't Leonardo or Policarpo talk to Dantas, Cachoeira, and so many other racketeers? I'm not saying anything new. Some journalists, like Gilberto Dimenstein, have written similar things. This, for example:

"If all investigative journalists were prohibited from speaking to sources with questionable backgrounds to obtain valuable information, there would probably be no uncovering of wrongdoing."

“I lived in Brasília for 13 years, where I won every possible journalism award. I can guarantee there’s a golden rule: in that rotten environment, the worse the individual, the better the source. Often, reports emerge from that quagmire that shed light on the corruption. I regret to say, but that’s how the game is played everywhere on the planet.”

Aside from the mockery (I've won all the journalism awards), he says something quite obvious, but even so, he was criticized harshly. Colleagues, talking to a criminal is not a crime. In fact, it's the livelihood of many people: lawyers, judges, police officers, journalists, and others. And what journalist wouldn't want an exclusive interview with Hitler on their resume, for example?

"But they weren't interviewing, they were just chatting and exchanging pleasantries." Excuse me, but giving a little polish to the offender doesn't necessarily imply an offense; it's part of the job to court and seduce him so he opens his legs (I mean, his mouth). Or, put another way: "If you want to fuck me, kiss me, damn it!"

If anyone is acting in bad faith in this story, it's the federal police, who manipulate the press, releasing a scoop to one person, a rumor to another, an audio excerpt (often taken out of context) to a third, and pitting journalists against each other, confusing rather than clarifying the case for the public. It's not uncommon for people to be accused of conspiring about the foreman's steel rod when they were actually talking about the work of the master Picasso.

If the disclosure of a police investigation is an act of public interest, it should follow the principles of public administration: legality, impartiality, morality, publicity, and efficiency. In other words, equal treatment for all. In a press conference, the responsible delegate should explain exactly who is being accused and why, in addition to revealing the same evidence to everyone. Then, let each person draw their own conclusions. The trickle-down release of compromising audios doesn't make anything clearer, although it's noticeably more amusing for them, who must be laughing heartily at the whole mess (and if they think they're powerful, of course).

I'm being provocative, I admit, but I'm not defending the relativism of the crazy black man, nor the anything-goes approach to news reporting. If it is duly proven (with concrete evidence and respecting the right to a full defense) that a journalist was unethical, dishonest, associated with crime, or harmed society, then let them be punished according to the law. Before that, online stoning has little practical effect, besides, of course, giving audience to the media outlets that attack each other.