(updated below (Thurs.))
One of the looming mysteries during the last several months of Brazil’s political crisis (as The Intercept has repeatedly noted) has been the complete absence of polling data from the country’s largest media outlets and polling firms. The lower house voted on April 17 — more than three months ago — to send to the Senate impeachment charges against democratically elected President Dilma Rousseff, which resulted in the temporary installation of her vice president, Michel Temer, as “interim president.”
Since then, there had been no published polls from Datafolha — the polling firm used by Brazil’s largest newspaper, Folha de S.Paulo — asking Brazilians if they favor Dilma’s impeachment, if they favor the impeachment of Temer, and/or if they want new elections to choose a new president. The last Datafolha poll prior to the impeachment vote was on April 9, and it found that 60 percent favored Dilma’s impeachment, while 58 percent favored the impeachment of Temer. It also found that 60 percent wanted Temer to resign after Dilma was impeached, and 79 percent favored new elections once they both left.
Headline: Ibope poll shows that 62 percent prefer new presidential elections
Incredibly, even though Temer was installed more than three months ago, the Senate is just weeks away from a final vote on Dilma’s impeachment, and the world’s eyes will be on Brazil when the Olympics begin in two weeks, there had been no new polls published — until this weekend. On Saturday, Folha de S.Paulo trumpeted a major new poll from Datafolha that was as surprising as it was positive for interim President Temer. It was also a radical departure from prior polls. The top headline promoted by Folha, which quite predictably went all over the country very quickly, announced that half of the country now wants Michel Temer to remain president through the end of what would have been the end of Dilma’s term in late 2018.
With the final impeachment vote imminent, that is an extremely significant finding: that 50 percent of Brazilians think it’s best for the country if Temer completes Dilma’s term. At least as significant was Folha’s claim that only 4 percent said they want neither Dilma nor Temer to stay, while only 3 percent want new elections. This was from Saturday’s lead online article:
Headline: For 50 percent of Brazilians, Temer should remain; 32 percent want Dilma to return
Poll graphic: What is best for the country?
Temer continues: 50 percent
Dilma returns: 32 percent
Neither of the two: 4 percent
Elections: 3 percent
Other responses: 2 percent
Don’t know: 9 percent
The paper also blasted this result on the front page of its Sunday print edition, the most-read edition of any newspaper in Brazil:
Highlighted paragraph: In politics, 50 percent advocate that Michel Temer remain as president, and 32 percent prefer the return of Dilma Rousseff.
Highlighted graphic: What would be best for the country? Temer continues: 50 percent; Dilma returns: 32 percent; Neither of the two: 4 percent; Elections: 3 percent; Other/don’t know: 11 percent
Not only was this result shocking given the widespread animus toward Temer revealed by prior polls, but it also made no sense on its own terms. To begin with, other Datafolha questions that asked who voters preferred to become president in 2018 showed that Temer was at only 5 percent, compared with the poll leader, former President Lula da Silva, who was between 21 and 23 percent, followed by Marina Silva at 18 percent. Moreover, only 14 percent approve of Temer’s new government (compared to 31 percent who strongly disapprove and 41 percent who are neutral). Beyond that, a full one-third of Brazilian voters can’t even name Temer as their current president. And, as one left-wing site noted in denouncing this latest polling headline from Folha as a “statistical fraud,” it is simply inconceivable that the percentage of Brazilians favoring new elections fell from 60 percent in April to 3 percent now, while the percentage wanting Temer to remain as president skyrocketed from 8 percent to 50 percent.
All of those facts made it extremely difficult to understand how Folha’s top-line headline — that 50 percent want Temer to remain as president through the completion of Dilma’s term – could possibly be true. It’s contrary to all known data. But Folha is the country’s largest paper; Datafolha is a reasonably credible polling firm; and they were unequivocal in their headline and lead graphic about this result. Despite all these obvious grounds for doubt, Folha did not publish the actual questions asked nor the underlying data with this article, so it was impossible to fact-check their claims.
As a result, this headline — that half the country want Temer to remain as president through 2018 — was heralded by most media outlets and instantly became ingrained as fact: as a potentially lethal fact that could easily seal the deal against Dilma. After all, if 50 percent of the country literally want Temer as their president through 2018, it’s hard to see how fence-sitting senators will deny them what they want.
But yesterday, the full data and underlying questions were made public. It is now evident that — whether through corrupt motives or utter ineptitude — a journalistic fraud has been committed by Folha. The reason only 3 percent of Brazilians said they want new elections, and only 4 percent said they want neither Dilma nor Temer to remain as president, is because the poll question excluded those as options. As the journalist Alex Cuadros noted today, the actual question that was asked only gave respondents two options: either (1) Dilma returns or (2) Temer stays through 2018.
Question 13: In your opinion, what would be better for the country: that Dilma returns to the presidency, or Michel Temer continues in the term until 2018?
So clearly, 50 percent of Brazilians did not say that it would be best for the country if Temer continues to complete Dilma’s term in 2018: They only said that would be the best choice if the only alternative was Dilma’s return. Moreover, it is plainly not the case that only 3 percent of Brazilians want new elections, given that they were not asked that. What happened was that 3 percent of the respondents went out of their way to volunteer that option when presented with the binary choice of “Dilma returns” or “Temer stays.” It’s impossible to know from this poll what the actual percentage is of those who want Temer to stay through 2018, or those who favor new elections, or, for that matter, what percentage wants Dilma to return. By falsely limiting the question to only two choices, Folha ensured that the results would be totally distorted.
For many reasons, asking the question in this manner — by excluding all choices but those two — is wholly unjustified. For one, Brazil’s Supreme Court previously ruled that the impeachment of Temer should be voted on given that he participated in the same actions that Dilma did. Beyond that, several of the country’s most prominent figures — including former chief Supreme Court justice Joaquim Barbosa and former presidential candidate Marina Silva, as well as Folha’s own editorial page — have called for new elections to choose the next president after Dilma’s impeachment. Andréa Freitas, professor of political science at Unicamp, told The Intercept: “Given that new elections are a viable option, it should have been included as an option.”
And as Cuadros noted, prior polls about Dilma and Temer, including the April 9 poll from Datafolha, expressly asked respondents whether they favored new elections. So it’s baffling why this Datafolha poll would purposely omit Temer’s impeachment and new elections and confine the choices to “Dilma returns” or “Temer stays.”
But that’s simply an argument about polling methodology — whether it makes sense to limit the choices to just those two outcomes. What happened here was much worse. Once Folha decided to limit the question this way, they can’t then deceive the country by pretending that the respondents were offered the full range of choices. By concealing that fact, Folha’s headline and lead graphic were not just misleading but outright false.
It is plainly false to say — as Folha’s graph did — that only 3 percent think “new elections would be best for the country” since the poll did not ask about new elections. Even more damagingly, it is also completely false to say that “50 percent of Brazilians believe it is best for the country if Temer continues” through completion of Dilma’s 2018 term. One can only say that 50 percent want Temer to stay if the only other choice is Dilma returns.
But if the other options are included — Temer is impeached, Temer resigns, new elections are held — it is a virtual certainty that the percentage of Brazilians who want Temer to stay through 2018 will drop precipitously. As Professor Freitas put it: “It could be that 50 percent prefer Temer to Dilma if those are the only choices, but part of that 50 percent favor new elections. With that option not included, there’s no way to infer that these people prefer Temer.”
This is no small matter. It’s hard to overstate the impact that this hyped poll has had. It’s the only poll from a credible firm that has been published in months. It was timed right before the final Senate vote. And it contained the extraordinary announcement that half of the country is eager for Michel Temer to remain president through 2018: a headline as sensationalistic as it is false.
Just consider how this poll finding was hyped — quite predictably — by headlines from other major Brazilian media outlets:
Headline: Datafolha: 50 percent of Brazilians want Temer through 2018
The first paragraph reads: “Polling from Datafolha conducted on July 14 and 15 found that 50 percent of Brazilians prefer interim President Michel Temer continue through 2018. The return of suspended President Dilma Rousseff was chosen by 32 percent of respondents. The rest of the 18 percent chose neither of the two, said they did not know, or prefer new elections.”
Headline: For 50 percent, Temer should continue; 32 percent want the return of Dilma, says Datafolha
The first paragraph reads: “Datafolha Polling revealed on Saturday that 50 percent of respondents prefer that interim President Michel Temer remain through 2018. For 32 percent, the best would be the return of suspended president Dilma Rousseff.”
In an interview with The Intercept, Datafolha’s Luciana Chong insisted that it was Folha, not her polling firm, that determined the questions to be asked. She acknowledged that it is misleading to state that 3 percent of Brazilians want new elections “since the respondents were not asked this question.” Chong further stated that any description of this data that claimed that 50 percent of Brazilians want Temer to remain as president would be inaccurate if it did not note that the question confined the options to only two.
In late April, Reporters Without Borders issued its annual press freedom ranking and Brazil dropped to 104th in the world due in part to the fact that “media ownership continues to be concentrated in the hands of leading industrial families linked to the political class.” Specifically, the group found that “in a barely veiled manner, the leading national media have urged the public to help bring down President Dilma Rousseff” and “the journalists working for these media groups are clearly subject to the influence of private and partisan interests, and these permanent conflicts of interest are clearly very detrimental to the quality of their reporting.”
It’s one thing for Brazil’s plutocratic media to openly incite and agitate the fall of a democratically elected government. As Reporters Without Borders found, that behavior poses a direct threat to both democracy and press freedom. But it’s quite another to watch as they simply manufacture headlines and false narratives to suggest that a large portion of the country supports the individual who seized power undemocratically when they plainly do not.
UPDATE (Thurs.): New evidence has emerged showing that Folha‘s journalistic fraud was even worse than we knew when this article was published, and Folha has responded to this article in the form of a news article. See here for our report of those subsequent events.
Here’s an analogy for those who can’t get what’s wrong with the original graph published by the paper. Imagine I conduct a survey that asks if you’d rather eat a bowl of feces or drink a gallon of urine. Those are the only options given. If someone offers another answer, I record them. In the end, 10% of the respondents actively rebel against the choices and say “none”. I then publish the results and claim “Only 10% of the public would refuse to ingest shit or piss”. ¿Would that be a honest claim?
Please note that wether any one of the alternatives is viable is completely irrelevant. You can argue that the third choice should have been offered to all the respondents, or shouldn’t have been recorded at all, according to your beliefs about whether people should be allowed to opt out of the shit and piss consumption in real life. That’s a whole other debate. What this article is saying is that claiming that 10% of the people supports this option is undeniably a lie.
Hope it helps.
New story; it gets worse, much worse
The extent of Folha de S.Paulo’s fraud upon its readership is utterly stunning — far more extreme than Greenwald and Dau knew of when the wrote the above yesterday.
See their piece today.
I think we can find it, SocPup. Utterly stunning jargon on your billboard though. Superlative optics!
Thank you!! :)
What’s their beef with spending billions in public money on contracts for a several week long sporting event, instead of on pressing social needs????? Perhaps the government should have spent more on Olympic publicity??? Why, just look at what the Greek Olympic games did for their economy!!!!
“Brexit means Brexit” means…nothing, except whatever the Tories decide they want it to mean
And I doubt the government’s brexit will resemble whatever left-wing brexiteers were thinking.
Good news for the rightwingers trying to defeat Corbyn in the Labour party, the candidate nobody wanted to vote for, Eagle, has thrown her support behind the candidate nobody has heard of, Smith:
There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Benjamin Disraeli, British Prime Minister
Do you really want Lucifer ruling America??? Think about it!!!
If I were Clinton, I would throw Lucifer under the bus immediately, even if it costs her the devil-worshipper vote.
This is funny, Rush Limbaugh is amazed that Roger Ailes’ accusers didn’t come to him:
So Limbaush has an explanation, the accusations of sexual harassment are a left wing conspiracy:
Wow. Is it normal for polling companies to release raw data to the public or was Folha’s hands forced on this occasion.
Is there a way to get US polling firms to make their data public??
There’s more coming. The extent of the journalistic fraud is even more profound than Glenn and Dau knew of when this piece was written. Another article will be posted shortly.
Interesting:
I don’t agree. I don’t see any “free speech” value at all in putting up fake tweets aimed at getting followers to harass someone. It’s a content-free attempt to take away someone else’s speech.
Yiannopoulos isn’t even making an effort to communicate in any way that could be mistaken for good faith. He’s playing in the gutter, then he’s wrapping his abuse in the flag of “conservatism” and “free speech” and then complaining that Twitter isn’t following an absolute laissez-faire free speech policy. Twitter may have a vague free speech policy, but judging by the anger, abuse and mindless hate that it is filled with, It is risible to suggest that Twitter is too restrictive of those things. We’re never going to all agree on where the line is, but every one has one. And Milo crossed Twitter’s.
Banning Milo won’t solve the internet, no, but I’d rather have him play the victim, explain how he’s lost the “right” to post doctored tweets of black actresses, than to have him continue on. I’m sure some other bottom feeder social media site will be happy to have him.
that argument is way too nuanced and gives too many openings for debate. not everything should be open to debate. all that matters is that yiannopoulos is a hateful asshole who should not be allowed to speak in public, including social media. like you said, “We’re never going to all agree on where the line is, but every one has one. And Milo crossed Twitter’s.” that’s right, and we should all be ready to enforce the line we have drawn. the responsible answer to bad speech isn’t more speech, it’s no speech
What’s so unusual about a national poll, in this case Brazil, limited to two repugnant choices? Look at what’s shaping up for the United States on November 8. There, too, a rule braking 3% will probably not restrict themselves to the obligatory straight jacket and vote Third Party.
Scandal. The site tijolaço found the leaves of the “research” that were hidden and they bring a self- denial. http://www.tijolaco.com.br/blog/o-datafolha-escondeu-e-o-tijolaco-achou-pesquisa-62-querem-novas-eleicoes/
The big media is involved deeply in the coup.
You guys should seriously consider rebranding this site to Brazil247…
btw, DataFolha is as realiable as a R$3 bill.
You are either a dumb or a lier. Probably both. A disgrace to you disgraced profession. Please, leave aside your politicals preferences an evaluate the facts.
The answer you expected is not legal in Brazil.
Your four three sentences are irrelevant insults.
The final one is hard to decipher — I assume English is not your first language. But whatever you mean to convey is likely wrong and/or irrelevant, if your first paragraph is any indication of your frightfulness.
This is a complete disgrace! And it is a widespread problem with Brazil, the manipulation of statistical data for political purposes. Widespread! All sides do it, BTW, during PT’so government, the IPEA published multiple fraudulent “studies” and polls, on all kinds of subjects, not just directly for partisan politics, also cultural politics, etc.
The sad reality is that Brazil is a country where overwhelming majority of people have 0 appreciation for truths and accuracy. People always celebrate lies that boost their positions and interests. It is a lot worse than in many other countries that I know. Dishonesty is part of the Brazilian public identity.
You accuse senior career civil servants as forgers of fraudulent statistics ? This is serious , huh ? Can you prove it ? There are several examples that demonstrate fraud in relation to research institutions for higher service media . You can do the same in relation to state bodies ?
Excellent!
Many thanks.
dear Glenn,
it seems we’re already two (me and Bobby d) asking you to hire some serious poll company. And I am sure that in heart we are the whole country rioting for that! maybe we’re asking you too much, yeah, but what can we do if there are few really serious and good journalists around? This is such a moment for History. Are you reading comments?
All best heartly regards.
Hi Glenn
Dada noted this below, you guys should do some polling, ie hire a creditable firm, then at least people can argue with a counterpoint. Pretty sure this would apply to Turkey as well given what JLocke has written.
It’s very simple: the question didn’t consider the possibility of a new election because a new election is not legal. At this point, there are just two possibilities: (a) Dilma returns, or (b) Temer stays as president. There is no ‘journalistic’ fraud…
The fraud is in presenting answers for questions that were not asked. If new elections were not on the poll, then they should not be in the results.
Dude, you’re a idiot! It doesn’t matter if it is legal or not, because it is an opinion polls, not a survey about the law. It is a FACT that many people are in favor of new elections, therefore it has to be one of the opinions which such poll should measuring. Otherwise, it is statisticallying flawed, they could not say that 50% want Temerity to stay because that is false, the poll did not accurately assessed what people’s preference is.
Glenn’s point is 100% correct here.
Below in comments Greenwald write:
You also assert:
Oh, not only is there the fraud that Greenwald and Dau write of above, it appears to be even worse. Greenwald’s Twitter Timeline indicates much, much worse, and he’ll be writing about it shortly.
All this time we thought the Turkish army was behind the military coup….turns out that those tanks were being driven by teachers and journalists!!!
Is that what it means to be a “conservative”? The sharing of ape images? Is that what free speech is for?
> Is that what free speech is for?
hell no, that would be like making it the right of all citizens regardless of their opinions. freedom of speech is for serious adults who have the correct opinions and that milo asshole does NOT. he’s a hater
t would be good that the little bundle submit evidence against the PT that seems to have since the judiciary plutocrat found nothing so far. Surely receive a kiss on the mouth of the corrupt judge Moro. A “Falha de São Paulo” , as well as the “Veja” and “Globosta” have made ??tight campaign against PT, patriot party and the Brazilian populace from the first day of the first Lula’s inauguration . They have been all demoralized , losing readers and viewers every day to get where they are : on the verge of bankruptcy. Meanwhile, excellents and honests Lula and Dilma made ??the best administrations in the history of Brazil . And not just me who thinks this: the world has ever seen. Only entreguista slag and their lackeys uncultured made ??o julio think otherwise.
Obvious media bias and corruption.
Brazilians are the only people who can help themselves,it has to be within,to combat these obvious criminals.So sad.
But they are small fry compared to the hillaryous one.
Outside of a few(very few)I can’t put any faith in any media org.,either online or print.
It is now an oxymoron or a complete self hypocritical myth to have any faith in media.
Look at the complete media assassination of Trump by almost every outlet,even here,as he is portrayed as the fascist racist,when in fact he has the best foreign and domestic plans than any candidate since Ike? by scumbags of empire and bankster lineage,whose serial lies have destroyed millions and millions.
And they wonder why they need blurbs like support our journalism?I bet the newspaper circulation #s are dismal,and guess what they are never coming back,idiot liars,as their are now many avenues to pursue knowledge,and who is going to limit themselves to the Lying times or Wapo?
Masochists,maybe.
Just when you think reason is the deciding factor in voter intentions:
Wow, I’d hazard a guess that the only western head of state that speaks more about Jesus than Obama, …is the Pope in Rome. You’d think Sabato would know that, with the soap star being born in Italy and all. But don’t bother fact checking that for Sabato’s sake, he knows what he knows because “It’s in my heart…he’s not with us….he’s with the bad guys”.
To do what Obomba does,murder people 8000 miles away,absolutely no threat to US,or even the world,reveals that he is neither Christian or Muslim,as true adherents of said would never ever do that.
I have had that argument too,that he is Muslim,and when I say his actions say he hates Muslims,they get all po’d.
Propaganda strikes deep,especially in those fully on board in wanting to believe.
He is just a puppet nobody,elevated in some weird way,into the POTUS.He is not up too the task,but so are just about all of our political cruds.
Hopefully Trump is.
If the American people are that stupid to elect a career screwup,an ideologue of complete BS,a serial liar,enabled by a corrupt media,they will deserve every disaster they will receive.
I have enough faith to know we aren’t that dumb,no matter illiberal contempt for the hoi polloi,expressed by so many squirrel wheel caged here.
The title should be: World’s Worst “Journalist” Contnues to Spread Lies to Defend the PT’s Mafia
Mimimi do capeta.
So true. The whole text here is so biased that only repeats the lies spread by the workers party in Brazil… Sad to see. No credibility at all.
Some people on the Brazilian Right actually think that if you confront an article filled with facts, statistics, evidence and expert opinion, that you can just yell “LIES!” and “BIAS!” and “PT!” and think that you’ve made an argument.
It’s really quite bizarre. I’ve done reporting, and argued with people, in many countries, but have never seen such a common belief that yelling these clichés without engaging the argument means you’ve won, the way I have with the Brazilian Right.
Dear Greenwald,
Do you have a problem with the right wing? I am just asking because as a jounalist would ve better to be imparcial. As i wrote before, the question has only two questions because in this moment there are just two LEGAL possibilities: Dilma returns or Temer stays. Is not a matter of “right wing” / “left wing”. It is a matter of learning why they did so – just one more question: did you contact Folha or Datafolha? Did u get a formal position about it? Before saying someone committed a crime you need to evaluate more than just one side of the story. And i am not talking about left or right – the two questions pool was a technical decision based on the legal framework.
Kind regards
You just proved that you didn’t read the article – the one you are here criticizing. How embarrassing.
I understand what you are saying Felipe, but this is not the case of being right or left wing. It’s clear that Folha did present results for questions that were not on the poll as if they were. It’s not a matter of opinion: the methodology was statistically bizarre. We have to be careful to adjust our opinions to the facts, never the opposite.
Demonstrating again the silliness of “Speak truth to power.” Power can speak lies louder. But it’s also useless to only speak truth to the powerless. “The truth will set you free” is more silliness. What the powerless need first is empowerment, which comes only through organization, which does not come only through a shared awareness of being screwed.
Which raises the question: given that a certain journalist (correctly) considers journalistic objectivity a myth, and has previously endorsed at least five “progressive” candidates for federal office, including Obama in 2008, why didn’t that same journalist endorse Bernie Sanders in 2016, and why isn’t he endorsing Jill Stein now? What is his new understanding of how positive political change occurs?
Meanwhile in France, a permanent state of emergency is not enough for “les Republicains”:
No half measures, no large gatherings of large groups of people, no privacy, that is what the right wants in France. “you can’t bomb ISIS in the morning and then in the evening go out partying. We are at war.”
As simple as it can be, it is Brazil and as a Brazilian, I’m not surprised.
In an attempt to prove that brexit isn’t racist, and Britain’s relations with the world won’t suffer, the UK Conservatives have appointed a “truther” as foreign secretary.
Johnson doesn’t clearly state that Obama is not American, he writes:
It’s mealy mouthed, “some said”. It’s on the same level as, when asked if Obama was American, Trump said:
That is not to say that all Brexiteers, or all Trump supporters are racists, only that it is the racists, whether genuine or feigned, that are in control.
Is Obomba part Kenyan?(alleged;))Isn’t it possible,even probable,if Obomba is the son of a Kenyan,to dislike the British for their imperialism?
And has Obomba released all his records?
This is all Katy bar the door shite anyway,as his term is almost up.
Yes,it is quite obvious the Zionists in control are racist.
It would be a fraud if the poll included an option for new elections — as suggested by the article’s author — without legal and constitutional ground. As already mentioned by others readers, the Brazilian Constitution does not authorize, under the present circumstances, a new election. Thus, legally speaking, asking if people would rather vote for president in a new election (instead of having Temer of Dilma) would be the same as asking if they prefer to have Obama for president of Brazil…
I think you need to look up the meaning of the word “fraud”.
From what I understand, the Brazilian constitution also doesn’t authorize impeachment for non-impeachable offences, but…there you have it.
It does point out though, the peril of attempting to end corruption. Those that are themselves corrupt will of course use corrupt means to defend themselves, making it all the more important that the reformers are, pardon the pun, unimpeachable. It’s not fair, but it’s true, Dilma must not only be LESS corrupt, she can’t afford ANY corruption or, what is happening will happen.
“From what I understand, the Brazilian constitution also doesn’t authorize impeachment for non-impeachable offences, but…there you have it.”
You’re absolute right on spot. The thing is, if you are not convinced about the offences Dilma commited are impeachable, then you should look others sources, or the piece filed for her impeachment. Here you won’t find it because is not convenient within their narrative.
you can read yourself right on the font and take your own conclusions.
But, if you consider yourself incapable and a lay person – like Mona try to make everyone who’s not a lawyer – then you can rely only on other people’s and journalist’s opinion.
Here’s a perfect example of someone who comes and makes an argument only by ignoring all of the facts that negate it, ones that are stated and documented expressly in this very article:
1) Datafolha itself has previously polled Brazilians on whether they want new elections. In fact, <a href="https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/755749449494847488"the firm's announcement of this latest poll expressly states that 60% of Brazilians want new elections. Thus, the very polling data you’re defending has repeatedly asked exactly the question that you’re claiming would be fraudulent.
2) All of these people have advocated new elections: the ex-Chief of Brazil’s Supreme Court (regarded as one of the country’s greatest and most honest legal minds), one of the current leading Presidential candidates, and the Editorial Page of the very newspaper you’re defending, the nation’s largest.
I guess it’s possible to claim that Joaquim Barbosa, Marina Silva and the editors of Folha – along with the polling expert Political Scientist we quoted – are all totally ignorant of the law and are advocating a fraudulent and impossible outcome, but I wouldn’t want to be in the position of arguing that. At the very least, it proves that “new elections” are a very prominent and highly-discussed outcome.
3) There are other options besides “Dilma returns,” “Temer stays” or “new elections” – including “Temer is impeached” or “Temer resigns.” So even if you believe that the solution proposed by Barbosa, Marina and Folha should never be asked by pollsters (even though they have previously), there are still other viable solutions that should be.
4) You missed the whole point of the article. If you really want to argue that the poll question was properly formulated by including only these two options, fine. But once that’s done, you can’t then mislead people into believing that you included other options – such as “new elections” and “Temer is impeached or resigned” – by listing them as though they were asked and saying the % that supports them. That’s the fraud of what Folha did here.
If it wasn’t asked, then it should not be in the resullts. Allowing other answers outside the scope of the poll is a bizarre methodology that produces biased results and DataFolha knows that very well.
DataFolha has a bizzare statistical methodology and a mastery of its audience. It will work no matter how thoroughly debunked.
Too true:
I agree, stealing platitudes that Obama stole from someone else, is not major. What is major is that a major political actor doesn’t even need to acknowledge that they plagiarized, of all things, a speech about their noble “values”. It’s almost as if the Trump campaign is following the script of “the Producers”, trying to lose….and being rewarded for it, maybe even winning….because the only perceived alternative, the status quo, the Democrats, have so totally hollowed out their own supposed values.
E’ quanto menos “curioso” q a preferencia seia Temer ao Dima ,isto porque LULA esta no TOPO das opçoes pra fututro Presidente do Brasil se’ houvera Eleiçoes !!! Dilma VAI VOLTAR e TERMINAR SEU MANADATO q E’ LEGITIMO . Varios Jornals interncionals comentaron esta materia e a duvida do reultado esta no ar ,pra mim issa pesquisa e’ FRAUDE !!!!
The plutocracy Brazilian press survives giving support for coups. 1954, 1964 and now 2016.
This type of press ignored the protests of the people for democracy (1984). Manipulated the president elections in 1989. Finally, Brazil has a putschist press that is at the service of economic oligarchies (many evade taxes).
No one serious here in Brazil believes in Folha, Datafolha or any of the “important media and pollers” you used as argument, because they are clearly biased as Lula and Dilma supporters.
Come live here, get better data, and then you can talk.
You know, Glenn actually lives here.
Jesus H Cristo! “Folha supports Lula and Dilma. ” Isso e um mentiro gordo.
I live in Sampa — since 1999. Can I talk?
You and some of your ideological cohorts ought to be a little more careful. You are giving Brazilian pedagogy a bad reputation.
Desculpe… e uma mentira gorda. Nao conheco os dimensoes do Andy, somente o tamanho da mentira dele.
Dear Glenn,
I the middle of this turmoil in Brazil, the moment comes for a poll commissioned by The Intercept. It would be more credible and really a historical mark in Brazilian memory. It’s hard to believe that the only poll register of popular opinion about these period of three months will be a manipulated poll such at the Datafolha one.
Would you consider commissioning a poll?
Sincerely yours.
Before you write an unfounded article, make sure to understand that all this leftist speech is bs, I’m a Brazilian citizen and I protested to remove the idiot who calls herself presidenta completely butchering the Portuguese language, so before you write idiocy, do some research and you’ll see the communists have their days cpunted in my country
Incredible, thank you.
Dear Glenn,
Interesting article. However, even if (as always) these ‘groundbreaking’ statistics spread in Brazil’s popular media like wildfire (and, for sure, influence the masses a lot), it may not be as serious as you claim to be.
As others pointed out, even if the question was biased, the only two options are the ones most reasonable, since new elections most likely won’t happen – logistic-wise and constitution-wise. If their question had three options: 1) Temer stays; 2) Dilma returns; 3) Both leave, Tiririca gets in and brazilian taxes become 0%; what would you think the answer would be? Silly example, I know, but as achievable as a new election (= un-achievable at all), in my opinion.
Your point of view is not considerating one important fact. The poll was produced and showed with the clear goal: make readers believe that public opinion has changed in favor of Temer.
But it a big lie!
Thanks for this clear and fair informations, that show how much the big press in Brazil is corrupted and serves to the coup.
Excellent assessment!
Gleen, Keep going. History will tell what is your actual size and contribution to journalism. I don’t think it is much, but let’s wait and see.
Isn’t “impeachment” an English word?
It’s constantly used by Brazilian media outlets when describing this process.
The work of The Intercept is making history. Keep it up Glenn and team. This is not 1964 but 2016 – luckily this media can’t be censored.
You can expect much more of this as the US media’s active promotion of Clinton builds.
From a whisper to a scream!(Hillaryous)A crescendo of crackling hellfire!
Allah,God,save US.(and the world)
So an individual took the power? Which world do you leave?
The ousting of the president is constitutional, and it has duly obeyed the whole procedure defined by the law.
There is no coup, there was a political betrayal, PMDB has changed sides.
Temer was democratically elected just like Dilma, and I don’t know if you guys are aware, PT and PMDB are still “friends”, still have alliances.
Unfortunately the paper accepts anything, but you guys are completely mistaken.
And by the way, there is not a single poll company that has supported more Dilma than Datafolha.
Very biased article without any legal foundation.
Live*
Losing political support shouldn’t lead to a president being impeached.
Impeachments are very serious and open ways to bad practices. If a president is removed from his/her place without a crime, the main and most terrorizing fact coming out of it is that: if you have few support in the other powers, Executive cannot stand.
This is not how the 3 powers were created.
The people should elect its representative and said representative should stay.
If you had read the whole thing, Datafolha had staff agreeing that the results were misleading. She said Folha made them ask those questions. It is not a serious poll and leads to misunderstanding all around, which is what this well written article pointed out.
I have a hunch. If one goes back to 2013 and makes timeline with the protests, lavajato’s major chapters or phases like the like to call them involving PT politicians especially Lula and reference in the polls one will find that polling has become part of the construction of narrative. That it was instrumentally used in the manufacturing of the consensus in popular opinion that getting rid of Dilma, Lula and PT is the way out. Using poll data for ideological purposes is not however a “jabuticaba”, something that one only finds in Brazil. It just so happens that in Brazil it is part of very explicit effort to undermine democracy whereas elsewhere it is much more subdued. Oh well, as the cliché goes; Brazilians are very extroverted.
You’re just repeating the workers party script ‘democratically elected’… I feel you guys are prone not to be neutral as you state others media’s did… Sorry to read that…our Constitution states that a president can be removed, so stating that she was democratically elected, is just a way to induce readers to think the process is not democratic, or simplifying ‘an illegal thing’…
Too bad…
let the paid press repeat their weak speech.
a lame article without any legal foundation, mate…
It was a coup. There is no question about it. A parliamentary coup, a media coup, a judiciary coup. Just because the constitution says defines an impeachment does not means this was the case. Impeached based in the will of Eduardo Cunha has no credibility. Deputies and senators bribed to portray a farce and to make it legal doesn’t make it legitimate. Stop using the constitution to justify a coup.
Does the Brazilian constitution say the president can be removed for any reason whatsoever?
Jose, no. If I’m not mistaken by law the only way to remove a Brazilian president is if the person in question has committed any type of crime. Right now Dilma has been removed from power but she is still the President of Brazil by all means. I believe after the Olympics the process will go final judgement and then she can loose her Presidential role if she is in fact proved to be guilty. Right now anything that is being said on all these statistics, etc, is all assumptions based on current scenario, none has validity until final judgement.
In an honest belief, until the Brazilian population doesn’t change their way of thinking, voting and their culture, Brazil won’t change doesn’t matter who or what party is in power.
Rapaz, tome vergonha na sua cara. Deixe de mentira. Não conheço ninguém no Brasil que quer a volta da Dilma é falar em novas eleições é ir contra a Constituição de 1988. Só terá novas eleições caso seja cassado a chapa Dilma/Temer por fraude mas eleições, e tem que ser antes de 2017.
Does your empregada(s) count as “anyone”?
Daniel, sera que vc não conheça ninguém no Brasil que quer volta da Dilma porque você não conheça muita gente? Ou porque todos os seus amigos pensam igual a você? Fora disso, o que foi que o Glenn escreveu era sobre a manipulação da pesquisa e não sobre a constituição. Entendo que a sua preferência não é o PT, mas era preferência dos 54 milhões dos seus conterrâneos e isso tem que ser respeitado.
The vast majority of Brazilian journalists are among the world’s worst. By the way, can be worse than their bosses. Uncultured, with very low moral and intellectual training, live cajole the plutocracy of the country, which also suffers from great moral and intellectual poverty. Lazy, without any entrepreneurial spirit, act as shark remora. Indulge subservient to international speculative banking and shady business deals that embarrass the Brazilian people. And history repeats itself. Every time that a ruler bucked a little bit the expectations that plutocracy who dared to look a little more for the humble, the official was chased atrociously. It happened to Pedro II, with Getulio Vargas, Juscelino with Kubitcheck with João Goulart, with Lula and now Dilma. They do everything. If the intrigues do not work, they appeal to the coup. If you can not support the coup, appeal to grossly manipulated research. If it does not work, appeal to the judiciary (almost all of Brazil’s judges are children of this plutocracy). If it still does not work, call your gendarmes. Sad fate.
Sounds pretty bad, but there are a lot of low quality journalists out there in the self-proclaimed First World too. What you describe reminds me of American and British stenographers. I worked at BBC News Online 2002-2005. Talk about sloth. And “Force Multiplication”. The chief editor once chirpped at me: “Hey, we’re all just buskers”. I went in with a lot of respect but left with something else.
You’re right. Passivity in many ” journalists ” have accepted the claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction is incredible.
And The Party line was “Dr. David Kelly killed himself”, though I recall a paramedic on the scene uttered a contrary opinion.
But the crank paramedic’s opinion was just another woolly conspiracy theory, like the nutters’ talk of Saudi involvement in the NYC / Pentagon attacks. Everyone knows Saddam did it with his allies in Iran, then hid his WMD in Syria. And everyone knows poisonous components inside some of the shells left over from the Iran/Iraq War that didn’t quite make it to Syria were not purchased from a contractor in South Carolina, USA.
And everyone knows Russia is preparing to invade Eastern Europe to reestablish the Evil Empire because The New York Times says so.
Respected journalists cannot make such claims at such a high frequency when they are not true. Serial lying is not tolerated by the Guild or its audience. Getting caught costs the offender her credibility. She might even be demoted to Fox News or the Washington Post.
It is not conspiracy theory. It’s fact. September 11 was a scam.
http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/pentagon_bp.htm
I don’t think it’s fair to criticize the polling company. American politicians have long known that people become confused if you present them with more than two choices. The human mind can grasp the concept of the lesser of two evils. But no one, apart from the odd genius, can deal with a highly complex abstract problem, such as the lesser of three evils. So I think the poll was correct to narrow the topic to a single binary option.
There are two types of people – those who prefer a binary choice, and those who don’t. Mr. Greenwald falls into the latter group. But that doesn’t give him the right to force his preference onto the polling companies.
There is too little (civil) discourse on the evil of so many lessers.
Greenwald, as always, your line of thought is simply ridiculous.
Could you explain why?
What a pitty you don’t give reasons while he does.
The media here in Brazil will do whatever it takes to get rid of Dilma. Their agenda is always the same: lie to the people, support corruption to continue with their power, sell Brazil to USA.
It is an old story and it keeps going. Thanks for the article, Glenn.
Yes, sell Brazil to the USA. Cheap. The coup supporters in the middle class will get nothing.
Amazing, Gleen!!!. There´s a coup in progress, here in Brazil, and you’re helping us to show it for the rest of world. The Brazilian press (Globo, Folha de São Paulo e Veja) have been destroyed our democracy.
Amazing, Glenn!!. There´s a coup in progress, here in Brazil, and you are helping us (Brazilian people) to show it for the rest of the world. Brazilian press (Globo, Folha de São Paulo e Veja) have been destroyed our democracy.
So Glenn, when are you going to talk that your husband is a candidate to a party who supports Dilma and attacks Temer? Or this information is also irrelevant?
Your lack of transparency is impressive.
http://tinyurl.com/j9fzahr
You mean the candidacy of my husband that I’ve repeatedly talked about, including by promoting the speech I made introducing him at his launch event?
Aside from the fact that journalists aren’t disqualified by political activism even of themselves let alone their spouses, and aside from the fact that – contrary to your claim – I’ve repeatedly and proudly talked about David’s candidacy and will continue to do so, your characterization of PSOL – a party formed in opposition to PT and whose founder called for new elections, not Dilma’s remaining – is totally false.
;) upsy
So Glenn what is more corrupt the Brazilian Plutocratic Political system held up by the media they own, or the United States Plutocratic Political system held up by the media they own?
These days most polls cannot be trusted.
They are either unadjusted or adjusted with an agenda in mind – i.e. useless or worse than useless.
Raw exit polls are still the gold standard but they have all but disappeared.
Thanks Glenn. Is this a preview of the US, or is the Brazilian press simply less sophisticated than their US counterparts? I ask this because as of a week ago the NYTimes reported Trump had overtaken Clinton, and today they say Clinton has a 76% chance of winning.
One thing that is clear to me: polling has become very politicized. It has always been problematic, because the way questions are posed can influence the answers given. But now I suspect that in addition to engineering the questions to produce bias in the results, they are just flat lying about the resulting numbers.
Good catch on that NYTimes story that ran today. I did a double-take when I saw that, considering how they had claimed Clinton’s lead had narrowed just last week. I simply brushed it off as another case of the NYTimes writing what it wants people to think- a sort of steering effort to get their girl into the Oval Office at any cost.
Looks like you don’t know anything about the U.S. The polls here are every week and there are a lot of polls companies and media outlets. The polls here are not manipulated because if they do so, it is easily catch and it would be a scandal, not like in Brazil 104th thrust worthy. You are mistaken about the 76% chance in the NYT it’s no a poll it’s a math calculation done by an expert that always get it right. Nate Silver is his name. He calculated Obama Chances he whole year and got it right. Glenn is right in this article. Datafolha committed a fraude.
Believe me. I’m from Brazil and nobody wants Dilma back.
I do.
#ForaTemer
Believe me. I’M also brazilian anda a lot of people actually want her back.
Don’t believe him. That’s not true. Liar.
Believe me, I’m really from Brazil and we want Dilma and Democracy BACK. #foratemer
i do.
#ForaTemer
Are you saying we should trust your anecdote-based assertions more than polls?
Can you point a single poll that states the return of Dilma is the people’s leading choice?
#ForaTemer…
Thanks a lot for your article!
I was puzzled by another claim in the Folha SP presentation of the survey: Headline on p.4, “Optimism regarding the economy..”
A majority, 38 % think “the economic situation of the country will improve” (time horizon not specified). However, 60 % say unemployment is set to increase , and 60 % think the inflation will rise. Probably not very good indicators of optimism, nor of support for the Temer team’s economic ‘reforms’….
Brasil247 as source? The same outlet whose owner (Leonardo Attuch) the Office of Public Prosecutors wanted in prison due bribery from PT? (http://politica.estadao.com.br/noticias/geral,lava-jato-pede-prisao-de-jornalista–mas-moro-nega,1737418)
And again, people who write about it don’t even bother to understand the law, the very issue they want to rant about. New elections are possible ONLY IF BOTH PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT SEATS ARE VACANT AND THAT HAS TO HAPPEN IN THE FIRST HALF (2 YEARS) OF THE CURRENT TERM. After that, in the second half, if BOTH SEATS ARE VACANT, the CONGRESS will elect the President indirectly – not by people’s votes.
So even in the case both Dilma and Temer gave up now, there will not have enough time for TSE prepare new elections in time. We will have Municipalities election this year in October, so there would have just 2 months – November and December – to prepare and held Presidential elections within this year (end of the first half). Impossible. So forget it, stop deceiving people and giving them a perspective that is out of question. New elections before 2018 are NOT a viable option.
http://www.stf.jus.br/repositorio/cms/portalStfInternacional/portalStfSobreCorte_en_us/anexo/constituicao_ingles_3ed2010.pdf
Brazilian constitution in English – page 70, article 81.
Calm down, pal. He’s pointing out that the Journal manufactured a binary context to fabricate a positive response for Temer. Neither the poll nor Glenn overlooked the law. The latter simply stated that, if carried on correctly and sincerely, the result would certainly not be this one (50% supporting Temer). You sound like Folha’s lawyer.
He is rigth. If Brazilian Constitution does not authorize new elections on the present circumstances, it would be wrong for the pool to put this false alternative as a question. And that’s why this article is misleadingly.
I don’t think he is. What I see is someone pushing an agenda against Temer, either for Dilma’s return or for new elections. Once he didn’t correct the professor who said new elections are a viable option when clearly it is not, being a constitutional lawyer by his silence he either overlooked it or he is pushing it against the law anyways.
And giving his and this site’s record of not fully explaining the legal aspects and issues on the impeachment process (for example explaining what are malversation crimes according to Brazilian law, detailing what are the THREE charges filed against her, and how the findings of the Senate report views each of them), cherry picking news and opinions about it to corroborate his view, it is not me that sounds like someone’s else lawyer.
As someone who has a fixed tweet that says criticizing Hillary does not mean supporting Trump, it is quite interesting that he cannot see that when Brazilians criticize (and oust) Dilma does not mean they support Temer (by 50% or any other figure)….
It is not a case of false dicotomy because, even if it is possible to have direct or indirect elections, but pragmatic-wise, as of right now chances are it is either Dilma or Temer.
Then you think wrong. But, you are on record here as not supporting democracy.
Your ranting — again — about some contrived need to post and litigate Brazilian law among lay people, many of whom are not Brazilians.
This article is about journalistic fraud. You do not address what the article as actually about.
You are so patronizing and have such contempt for the people you keep calling them “lay people” as if they aren’t enlighted enough to read a couple sentences and take their own conclusion. A constitution is not rocket science. Everyone is capable to read and interpret it. Lawyers like you on the other hand are full of themselves and think only you have the wisdom to read it. This attitude is pathetic.
Your silly attempt to accuse me of not addressing the article’s subject just shows your lacking skills on text interpretation. There was no fraud on the pollster or the journal. There’s actually only 2 possible choices now, Dilma or Temer. There’s no possibility of presidential elections. What is a fraud is to push something against the law, such as a presidential election.
And yes, I really think democracy is overrated. People always use democracy as an excuse to support anything when it suits them. Even to support a criminal in office because of, you know, votes… When democracy is last word on any issue, it is nothing but an “Argumentum ad populum” and society is prone to a tyranny of the majority, and its decision making is no different from a beauty pageant contest. As history tells, on democracy people chose Barrabbas over Jesus. What people fail to recognize is that we are not and never were a democracy. Before 1889 we were a monarchy, since then we are a republic.
Rule of law > democracy.
Thomas translated: “I don’t care what the article is actually about — I won’t address that. No, I’m going to restate my contempt for democracy and also continue to insist that posting Brazilian laws — which I stupidly think everyone here could adequately interpret and apply — is what the article should be about.”
You simply will not address this in the article:
This isn’t a Brazilian law blog. This site is, among other things, devoted to media criticism. You just don’t like that Greenwald and Dau capably exposed media fraud.
Right Mona, have your own way…
You, like everybody else is entitled to your own opinions. But you are not entitled to your “own facts”.
#BrazilianLawsMatter :D
You can discuss all day long what would happen, who would win a fight to death between an unicorn and a minotaur, but in the end this discussion is useless because it fails in the premises (they don’t exist).
Whether people want or not new elections is pointless now. It’s not likely to have a presidential election. If against all odds it happens, they will not vote because of, you know, the law.
And to quote from one of Glenn’s comments above:
Pffff… not only this a mere ad verecundiam, but also the context they were asked about new elections no longer applies, making this reference totally out of context today.
When the discussion of new elections emerged, (from PT trying to gain sympathy once she lost in the Chamber of Deputies, promising to hold elections in case she came back to power) there would have time for such possibility. Now we do not. Unless you are asking for congress to elect a new president, which I doubt you are…
Not to mention Marina Silva, who is of course interested in being president. She should recuse herself of such statements, since it shows conflict of interest.
God, Thomas, you are a total hoot!
The only “context” that matters is that one of your nation’s premier legal experts says new elections are not, in fact, legally impossible, as you insisted they are.
My facts are those I quoted from Glenn’s article about the journalistic fraud. You simply don’t like it, and wish to discuss anything else.
Why, thank you! ;-) **blow kisses**
I don’t insist it is legally impossible. I only state that the premises needed in order for new elections to happen – having both seats vacant within the first half of current’s term – most certainly will not be met in time. It can happen, but let’s face it… it so negligible it is impossible…
That’s why former’s chief justice statement was time dependent and is now out of context.
“You simply don’t like it, ….”
Wrong, my dear. I’m apathetic to the facts, I just take them for what they are. I learned that to carry sentiments towards the facts won’t change them, for the good or for the bad, so it is pointless and health consuming…
You’re all missing the point. The main accusation is that the journal presented the “other” spontaneous responses as if they were explicit options, characterizing them as equal to the two real choices given. That’s the fraud
Indeed!
Great work again Glenn. Keep shining that light, uncovering the darkness.
Folha, Globo and Veja openly promote the coup at ANY cost
I will forever be greatful to you, Glenn!
This is beyond fraud! Folha SP already flushes white faces up & down their paper, rarely with much color. I don’t even believe that 50% of the nation would choose Temer over Dilma. I may live in the Northeast of Brazil, but I’ve rarely heard anyone compliment Temer….ever. How is Datafolha able to poll the very poor of Brazil with such accuracy, especially when many often switch cell numbers? The best way might be to walk up & down the poor neighborhoods, yet I don’t see that method of data collection happening. My hypothesis is that Datafolha polling sample is already skewed heavily to the upper-middle class, yet even on top of that, they still have to commit lies with stats.
They seem to be quite accurate though. Just look at the predictions for the past presidential elections. Within the error margin, so it looks like they know what they are doing, wouldn’t you agree?
All in all, 50% might not endorse Temer, but you can’t deny the figures for Dilma are just horrible. If she comes back, the outlook for our economy will look quite depressing.
Andre
That’s a valid argument about Datafolha’s past performance on elections. Fair enough on Folha’s accuracy on past Presidential polls. I still want to know how they poll the poor. I don’t deny Dilma has low ratings, but nearly all gov executives have low numbers. France’s President is near or below 20% and his ratings have been low for a long time, yet the French don’t call for impeachment. Impeachment is not based on popularity, and least not in the nations that invented the anglo word.
If Dilma personally stole money with millions hidden in a bank account somewhere in Switzerland, OK, impeachment is appropriate.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but so far Dilma has only been found guilty on opening lines of credit without congressional approval, which many global gov execs could be charged on similar accounts. It’s nearly impossible to find articles that discuss the actual charges against her & potential structural solutions to change it. The conversation is about everything else, except the actual charges or solutions to more transparency with gov budgets.
Solutions like BLOCKCHAIN can move Brazil into a new era of gov budgeting (I’m an ex-NYC OMB Analyst), but I honestly fear Temer overseeing national security. I’ve no problems holding Dilma more accountable on the budget via Blockchain and hope to see Brazilian Universities become a new wing of Brasilia, but I feel much safer with Dilma overseeing security, even despite her dumb warring on drugs.
Temer is a dictator-in-the-waiting. It’s not all about left vs right, as I highly respect FHC on his call for drug reform, especially legalizing a plant that kills zero while tobacco kills millions. However, Temer reminds me of a Dictatorship Part II that we’ll regret in the future, which will embarrass the next generation of Brazilians who shake their heads looking back at how another coup fell upon Brazil.
The public doesn’t have all the info of what’s happening behind the scenes, but I bet the next gen of Brazil will call the Temer Administration a coup far more than a democracy. Temer is a puppy dog for the global oligarchy.
1 Solution to low popularity is NEW ELECTIONS. Let’s have them in Argentina 2. Dilma & Cristina vs. Temer & Macri?! I love democracy. I’ll shut up if those boys win, but before they completely sell out Brazil & Argentina by putting up Israeli Satellite Security & US Military Bases, let’s push a democratic race. If my girls lose, I’ll fully admit defeat and won’t call Temer a Coup because at least then he’d would have won democratically and not thru some shady foreign-backed poll-driven impeachment. I also worry about a prison sentence preventing Cristina from running again in Argentina. Just so you know, Macri is trying to throw her in jail while putting up US Military bases, yet his name is the one named in the Panama Papers.
As far as the economic outlook, nearly all nations are going through tough times when we’ve got 1% owning 50% of world! We need a new economic system that shares the fruits of science far more than today’s oligarchy. Our universities can connect us with green tech updates far better than nationalistic politicians. All nations benefit from sharing rather than stealing/hoarding science advancements. We need to move quickly towards a planet not driven off fossil fuels & less meat consumption, like the Dutch are doing now. Still eat meat but cut down the amount. Brazilians likely won’t lose their great butt as a new diet can firm it up rather than sag it down like McDonalds does. I am deeply concerned about the obesity-driven society of driving & junk food that Brazil has adopted.
Brazilian beauty took ages to create thru racial integration & culinary traditions, yet we’re about to throw it all away on Ford & McDonalds.
And Earth took 4.5 Billion years to get where she is today, yet we treat our mother like a Big Mac Wrapper thrown into a disposable garbage basket, ignoring the fact that coral reefs bleach to death, glaciers & polar caps melt at jaw-dropping paces while heat smashes records as rainforest fall for more methane-producing agriculture to beef up a globe that suffers far more from obesity than hunger.
I admit, Dilma has dropped the ball on healthy eating & the environment, but Temer is far worse.
I look forward to Brazilians thinking a bit more like the Europeans on the environment & food rather than short-term economics. I don’t want to live in an obese Brazil whose daily ego is linked to the Real-Dollar Rate + price of a BK Whopper. How pathetic. In 2014, I moved from the USA to the independent Federal Republic of Brazil, not the little obedient oligarchy brother of the USA it is today.
By the way, during this so-called economic crisis, they’ve now put up a 3rd McDonalds in my area of Aracaju & putting up a 4th soon. In addition, many of the grocery stores are often foreign-owned by either USA Walmart or Chile Cencosud! Those stores push many non-Brazilian plastic-covered products of poisons injected with preservatives. Let’s not forget about Carrefour from France either. A nation that doesn’t own a majority of its grocery stores is a nation that doesn’t have a large handle on a key sector of its economy.
For example, when I go into to buy a cold beer at BomPreço (Walmart), the only cold beer in the refrigerators are foreign. True story. All of them, while the domestic beers are all warm on the shelf or on the floor. As far as automobiles, they’re all foreign. What we need is more cycle lanes & electric Brazilian bicycles so we can spend more money on our own economy than the EU-US Auto Industry. We also can use Tesla’s open patents to create a new line of home batteries & electric line of Autos, even if it means buying out Jeep so that we now have our own American Latina Line of Automobiles. Italy can still have Fiat while US keeps Chrysler.
These foreign auto & grocery product players pay lots on advertisements to Folha, Globo & Co. which is why they want to print Dilma out, as she adopts more of protectionist policies than Neoliberal outsourcing & privatization.
Oil is yesterday, so all this talk of privatizing Petrobras is a waste. We’ll likely be off oil by 2030 at the rate Tesla, Hyperloop & Clean Tech industry is revolutionizing transit & energy production. Brazil, like the rest of America Latina, clings hopes & fortunes on the old sector as it ignores the new reality of tomorrow of a fossil-less energy sector. But Brazil & developing world should be given credit for already being leaders in the renewable arena. Brazil needs to rail up new trains too to provide a different way of weaving in & out of cities & states.
Petrobras & all the other fossil-driven companies (private + public) will go bankrupt soon as more & more universities & organization pull their investments from fossils. It’s literally a life-or-death argument on Earth that’s backed by hard-core data, far more than the 50% Temer poll!!
The Latin Left (Lula, Dilma, Mujica, Morales, Correa, etc.) can be a diplomatic powerhouse of epic proportions that brokers deals to quickly ends wars on drugs & drones that stops the influx of Latin & Muslim immigrants into US & EU. Win-win situation for all!!
Latin Diplomacy can be swapped for shared US Universities R&D & Euro Engineering that extends a Patent-free Planet to everyone, especially for poor Africa whose been raped of resources for millennia. Oh the irony on how Latinos love the EU during this whole Brexit yet when it comes to an America Latina Union, they become instantly selfish & trample over each other like little kids on trade with EU, US & China. Remember, many Chinese don’t even speak the same language, as the difference between Mandarin & Shanghainese is a bit like Spanish & Portuguese.
I’ve little hope for Brazil until she joins hands with her Latin Sisters, much like Germany, Italy, France & Co. do in EU….but at the least we could have new elections. As accurate as Datafolha has been on past Presidential predictions, polls & press should not determine democracy. Only Brazilians at the voting booth can verify Datafolha’s accuracy on democracy
New Presidential elections in conjunction with Municipal Elections. Why Not?
Brilliant write up! Article in itself, deserving of being published here. I hope your message reaches those who are currently being brainwashed by Rede Golpe and similar outlets.
Go Nate!
Dear Nate – you are completely right!
Greenwald and Dau: thanks! keep up the good work!