▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ⟶
- Polling data concealed by Folha shows a large majority want Temer to resign: directly contradicting Folha’s key claim
- 62 percent of Brazilians want Dilma and Temer to quit and new elections held: not 3 percent as Folha stated
- Incriminating data was published, then unpublished, by Datafolha: discovered yesterday by a Brazilian website
- Response from Folha’s executive editor — they withheld data that was not “journalistically relevant” — cannot withstand scrutiny
On Wednesday, The Intercept published an article documenting the extraordinary journalistic fraud committed by Brazil’s largest newspaper, Folha de São Paulo, in radically distorting the views of Brazilians on the key questions of the country’s political crisis. Specifically, Folha blasted headlines to the country announcing that 50 percent of Brazilians now want the extremely unpopular interim president, Michel Temer, to complete Dilma’s term and remain as president through 2018, while only 3 percent favor new elections and only 4 percent want both Dilma and Temer to resign. That was squarely at odds with prior polling showing vast majorities opposed to Temer and favoring new elections. As we documented, the actual polling data — which Folha’s polling firm, Datafolha, only published days after the article — did not remotely support Folha’s claims.
But after our article was published, much more evidence was found — through amazing collaborative work by internet sleuths — showing how extreme Folha’s behavior was, including the discovery of a smoking gun proving that it was much worse than we knew when we published yesterday. Do not let the fact that this story involves polling data and methodologies obscure how significant this episode is:
Weeks before the conclusion of the country’s most virulent political conflict in at least a generation — the final Senate vote on Dilma’s impeachment — Folha, Brazil’s largest and most influential newspaper, not only distorted, but actively concealed, crucial polling data that completely negated what they “reported”: data that establishes that a large majority of Brazilians want “interim President” Michel Temer to resign, not remain in office as the paper claimed. Put simply, this is one of the most remarkable, flagrant, and serious cases of journalistic malfeasance one can imagine.
After our article was published yesterday, the full-scale unraveling of Folha’s story began when Brad Brooks, Reuters’s chief correspondent for Brazil, noted an extraordinary discrepancy: while Folha trumpeted on its front page that only 3 percent of Brazilians want new elections and 50 percent want Temer to stay, the paper’s polling firm, Datafolha, had issued a press release with the published data announcing that 60 percent of Brazilians actually want new elections. Just compare this amazing contradiction:
Datafolha graphic on left: “60 percent favor new elections.” Folha graphic on right: “3 percent favor elections.”
How could this be? We immediately contacted Datafolha to ask this, but by then our story had been picked up by most media outlets in Brazil and became a national controversy, so they were refusing to talk to us further. They just simply would not explain this major discrepancy.
But this discovery led to another towering question: In the underlying questions and data published by Datafolha, there was nothing showing that 60 percent of Brazilians favored new elections, as the firm’s headline described. It was clear that Datafolha only published some of the questions they asked, not all. That’s because the questions were numbered, and the published document only included the questions numbered 7-10, 12-13, and 21. That is not itself uncommon or wrong (newspapers often withhold polling questions on different topics in order to roll out the reporting in stages), but it was bizarre that none of the questions Datafolha published supported or even related to its headline. So where did that 60 percent number — one that directly contradicted Folha’s front-page report — come from?
The answer was discovered through outstanding investigative work by the website Tijolaço. First, led by Fernando Brito, they realized that Datafolha’s published document containing the underlying polling data and questions — the document that we cited in our article to show that Folha’s reporting was false — had a URL that ended with “v2,” which meant that it was the second version of the document published by Datafolha. So they searched for the first version, but it was not on Datafolha’s site. Although the first version had apparently been unpublished by Datafolha, it was still a live link on their server, and, guessing the correct URL, Tijolaço was able to locate and download it.
What they found there — which Datafolha apparently had unpublished — was stunning. It proved that Folha’s story was an absolute journalistic fraud. Included in that first version was Question 14, which asked:
“A situation that could happen is new presidential elections in Brazil if Dilma Rousseff and Michel Temer resign their office. Do you favor or oppose Dilma Rousseff and Michel Temer resigning in order to convene new elections this year for the Presidency of the Republic?”
The unpublished data from Datafolha shows that 62 percent of Brazilians favor the resignations of Dilma and Temer and then new elections held, while 30 percent oppose that solution. That means that — contrary to Folha’s claim that only 3 percent want new elections and 50 percent of Brazilians want Temer to stay as president through 2018 — at least 62 percent of Brazilians, a large majority, want Temer to resign now.
The facts are even worse for Folha (and Temer): The percentage of Brazilians that wants Temer to resign now is certainly much higher even than this 62 percent. That’s because Datafolha’s question asked whether people favor the resignations of both Temer and Dilma. Many of those who answered “no” — as the data breakdown shows — are members of PT (Dilma’s party) and/or want Lula to be president in 2018, which means they answered “no” not because they want Temer to stay, but because they want Dilma to return. So — just as Ibope found in April — it is only a very small minority of the country that wants Temer as their president: the exact opposite of what Folha “reported.”
This was not the only missing data that Tijolaço discovered when they found the first version of the published data. As they explain in a comprehensive account of what they did, there were two full paragraphs written by Datafolha summarizing this vital polling data that were also removed from the published second version, including this sentence: “A majority (62 percent) declared themselves in favor of a new election for the office of president.”
Tijolaço also discovered a separately concealed question — Question 11 — that is the most favorable yet for Dilma on the question of impeachment, which Folha omitted. Datafolha asked:
“In your opinion, is the process of impeachment against President Dilma Rousseff following democratic rules and the Constitution, or is it disrespecting democratic rules and the Constitution”?
Only 49 percent said impeachment complies with democratic rules and the Constitution, while 37 percent said it did not. When purporting to describe the views of the country about impeachment, how could Folha possibly conceal this very surprising and significant data?
Last night, Folha published a response in the form of a news article that described what it called the “controversy” provoked by our article. It glided over, and in many cases ignored, most of these key questions.
The Folha article did note that contrary to its own previous claim that only 3 percent of Brazilians want new elections, “the percentage that favors new elections increases to 62 percent when the polling firm asked about this explicitly.” And it included the two questions it had previously kept hidden: one showing that a majority wants Temer to quit, the other showing a large minority viewing impeachment as a violation of democracy (Folha failed to mention that this new data had, in fact, already been published earlier that day by Tijolaço):
But the paper nonetheless insisted it did nothing wrong by hiding this data. It quoted its own executive editor, Sérgio Dávila, as arguing that it is “the prerogative of the paper to chose what it believes is ‘most journalistically relevant’ when it decides to publish a poll.” Dávila argued that “the question about Dilma and Temer both resigning did not appear particularly noteworthy because it was known from prior polling and because, in the current political landscape, that option is not really considered any longer.”
It’s impossible to overstate how irrational this response is, and how much Folha’s executive editor is counting on the gullibility of his readers. The biggest takeaway by far from Folha’s reporting was that the country is happy to have Temer remain as president through 2018, and only a tiny percentage want new elections. But while Folha reported this, they were holding in their hands the data that proved these claims to be 100 percent false, showing that literally the opposite was true. A large majority of Brazilians want Temer to quit, not remain as president. And a large majority, not a tiny fringe, want new elections.
None of Dávila’s excuses withstand even the slightest scrutiny. If it’s journalistically irrelevant to know what percentage of Brazilians favor new elections, why did Folha have their polling firm ask this? If this question about new elections is irrelevant, why was this data not only included, but prominently highlighted in its headline, by Datafolha in their original release? Why, if this data is irrelevant, did Datafolha publish it originally, only to then unpublish it by posting a second version that excluded it? And how can this data be deemed by Folha to be journalistically irrelevant when it directly contradicts the claims they hyped on their front page that were then amplified by the country’s largest media outlets?
Other media outlets certainly don’t view this data as irrelevant. The Brazilian edition of El Pais last night published a news account with the headline: “62 percent support new elections, according to data that Datafolha now publishes.” The El Pais article casts the story as much a media scandal as it does a political one, as it describes how Folha hid this data until it was found as a result of our story. Indeed, El Pais published a separate story yesterday quoting experts who echoed the ones we interviewed, harshly criticizing Folha for how they misused this polling data.
Headline: “62 percent support new elections, according to data that Datafolha now publishes.”
Most amazingly of all, this was all done in service of denying the need for democracy: deceiving the country into believing that most Brazilians support the person who seized power undemocratically and that there is no need for elections, when in fact the majority of the country wants this “interim president” to quit and new elections to be held to choose the legitimate leader.
As we noted yesterday, it’s impossible to say whether Folha acted with deliberate intent to deceive or with extreme journalistic ineptitude and recklessness, although evidence suggesting the former is certainly more abundant now than it was yesterday. But motives aside, what is now beyond debate is that Folha misled the country in fundamental ways about this generation’s most consequential political conflict and hid from the public vital evidence that they only admitted existed once they got caught red-handed doing all this.
I read your powerful interview on Slate.com, because of your retweets earlier. I hope you’re otherwise enjoying some well deserved time off.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/interrogation/2016/07/glenn_greenwald_on_donald_trump_the_dnc_hack_and_a_new_mccarthyism.html
Also, I’m currently reading Mark Hertsgaard’s “Bravehearts,” and Alex Cuadros’ “Brazillionaires” is waiting patiently on deck. Thank you for that.
It is amazing to see how quickly Brazil’s brand has turned around for the worse. Just a few years ago, Brazil was the darling of international capital – the real was a beautiful investment, and Goldman Sachs was pumping them up as part of this “BRIC” thing they made up. Now it’s all sewage and broken down buildings at the Olympics overseen by striking police and a government little more respectable than a coup, probably worse even than if Clinton had gotten impeached over the cigar game. At this point it seems like people are going to be transmitting a Third World image of the country to their children and grandchildren… though maybe that will change once all the elite folks who sold their Brazil stocks and reals before have bought them back again and are ready for another run?
Now that you’ve seen how the Democrats cheat in their own leadership race, just imagine what they do against others.
By the way, Jill Stein is looking good.
Fox upshot is, bailing out banks… good, indebted students… are irresponsible. If you’ve not got rich parents, then you should not have gone to school.
Speaking of corruption, I like the way Clinton is countering Trump’s “crooked Hilary” attack. Keep it up!!!
I don’t know what is going to earn Clinton more support from “rude” progressives, that she rewarded the corrupt DNC chair with a new position in her campaign, that she named a conservative as VP pick, or that she simply has a track record of being as crooked as Trump could ever hope to be.
I like the way nobody tells American new people what to say.
What a joke, a guy runs against a system that his supporters says is “rigged”…evidence emerges that the system IS rigged….Clinton rewards the person who rigged it. Democrat response? Look at that awful guy over there, Trump!!!
Thank you for the excellent article. Is there any way to bring this to major foreign media outlets such as the NYT or BBC? It would help immensely if there were pressure from other big players!
Brazil’s main problem is that it is literally corrupt to the core. As an American living in Mexico, (which is pretty darned corrupt), I can see the corrosion this does to any society trying to move forward. It literally renders progress impossible. In Mexico, everything is controlled by some form or other of corruption, from the vendors in the subway who must pay bribes to be there (it’s “illegal” to sell stuff in the subway), to illegal taxis that paid-off, local politicians claim don’t exist, (Yet the legitimate taxi drivers will point them out to you when you go for a ride), to more serious corruption in rigging elections, killing students, and selling favors to drug gangs who thus avoid prosecution.
And Mexico is a model of peace, stability, and prosperity compared to Brazil. I can only imagine how much more corrupt Brazil must be.
If you are an American who has never lived in such a place (while speaking the language), corruption on such a scale is literally incomprehensible. Sure, there’s plenty of “payola” in American politics, and we’ve seen this election season how rigged the system really is. But American corruption (which has gone way too far) is nothing compared to its Latin American cousin.
I feel for the Brazilian people, and hopefully they can somehow rise up and replace the entire criminal lot that pretends to be a government.
But like any other mafia, that government will probably happily kill those who oppose it powerfully enough.
Sad. Truly sad.
Hardly, but that’s beside the point.
Polls of what Brazilians think at present are important. But Folha is more concerned with what Brazilians will think in the future, which is arguably even more important. So it would be journalistically irresponsible to release the results of poll questions which are incompatible with what Brazilians will eventually believe. The future can be jarring, so Folha should be celebrated for helping to smooth the path forward.
I was angry, but then I saw your name.
This guy is a joker, ahaha.
Benito is that – and frighteningly prescient, as well.
It takes two to tango.
Polls of what Brazilians think at present are important. But Greenwald is more concerned with what Brazilians will think in the future, which is arguably even more important. So it would be journalistically irresponsible to release
the results of poll questionswhich are incompatible with what Brazilians will eventually believe. The future can be jarring, so Greenwald should be celebrated for helping to smooth the path forward.“Folha is more concerned with what Brazilians will think in the future, which is arguably even more important. ”
This sounds dangerously similar to Orwell’s, “He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future”.
It appears Folha and Fox have the same game plan, to distort reality in order to push their own agenda. The oligarchic control of the major news sources are used to deceive and distract the populace from recognizing only the few have power and keeps the populace under their control.
Keeping the populace under control sounds ominous – until you see the populace out of control. Is telling the truth ultimately good, if it inflames people into attacking each other?
Congratulations to the brilliant Glenn Greewald have examined and detailed all roguery . However , we can not forget the merit of Fernando Brito tijolaço which was responsible for at detective work , find out the pages of the research that the Failure of São Paulo tried to hide . http://www.tijolaco.com.br/blog/o-datafolha-escondeu-e-o-tijolaco-achou-pesquisa-62-querem-novas-eleicoes/ . Changing the subject , a curiosity : the little packages (trouxinhas) are gone. I wonder why?
As always, I am left grateful to your journalistic work and your outrage. Thankyou thankyou thankyou! Be safe! You are precious to the world and we can’t afford to lose you!
WELL DONE!!
Why isn’t this amazing article at the top of The Intercept home page? One has to scroll down to the Greenwald section to see its headline. I just discovered it, five hours after it was published. That ain’t right.
I reject this leftwing poll. The fact of the matter is 81% of the people want Temer to stay in office.
Enough with the spin.
hmm, knowing how they usually make these polls, looks like they commited an error. The poll where people prefer Temer most likely didnt really question about new ellections, its probably a scenario of Dilma returning x Temer staying, then people prefer him to stay than getting her back, but overall believe that the best possible scenario would be new ellections.
Excellent corrective, but the results are still sad unless an election is possible and productive.
As in the US, even the truth itself is met with opinions so strong that obvious reality is not invited. Very sad that the propaganda has so successfully obscured the good that the PT has done. I’m not impressed by “lesser evil” arguments generally, but in the case of Brazil there has been an unmistakably noble anti-establishmentarian attempt with Dilma to rise out of the shadows of social apartheid, and the prospect of having that modest progress undone by the ruling class (with the permission of the propagandized masses) is really quite tragic.
Brilliant!!!
Love the work by Tijolaço. Got a great laugh!!!
The “Folha de SP” newspaper commonly publishes this kind of half-journalism. They put such disinformation preferably in the first page, and when somebody notices the obvious they follow up with tiny notices in the last page, saying that they made a “mistake”. It is not the first time and probably will not be the last time this happens, since they are so widely known to be financed by the right-wing state government of SP.
Glen Greenwald for SCOTUS!!!!
I think Glen would make an excellent Justis and could influence the court for decades.
I know it is a pie in the sky but would be nice if we could get the internet talking about it…
I don’t twitter but maybe a GGforSCOTUS hash tag would be a start…
Brian7 • 5 months ago
My dream Scotus member would be Glenn Greenwald.
•Share ›
http://feministing.com/2016/02/15/who-do-you-want-to-be-appointed-to-the-supreme-court/
Seems I am not the only one:
Glenn Greenwald for SCOTUS
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/5/4/727093/-
This person puts out a good argument for GG.
Jill Stein would not only pardon Edward Snowden, she would give him a position in her administration – so she’s probably the best bet to get Greenwald in the Supreme Court. He would be perfect for it, you’re quite right, as the theatrical left/right split therein would be made much more nuanced by an actual civil libertarian. And as that’s precisely why the establishment wouldn’t want him there, I’m all for it.
The world will have to turn upside down before that happens. But I’ve personally felt this way for a while. What a great day that would be.
Cheers :)
Por favor denuncie o golpe que está acontecendo em nosso país.. O mundo precisa boicotar e intervir nessa gente suja que toma o estado a força.. Nosso país hj está tomado por uma quadrilha de ladrões que estão literalmente matando a população de fome e em filas de hospitais, com a violência desenfreada.. O povo está gemendo!!!
“So they searched for the first version, but it not on Datafolha’s site.” – typo; missing “is”.
Also, “… there were two full paragraphs written by Datafolha summarizing this vita polling data that were also removed …” missing “-l” in (presumably) “vital”.
“… when in fact the majority of the country wants this “interim President” to quit and new elections to be held to choose the legitimate leader.”
That’s stretching the results quite a lot. The right conclusion would be:
“… wants this “interim President” and the former President – both Temer and Dilma – to quit and new elections …”
Because what’s pretty clear by any scenario the return of Dilma is unwanted (the perils of democracy, huh?).
The conclusion is that, in this order, what people want is either:
1 – both out and new elections;
2 – the lesser evil, Temer over Dilma.
Stating that people want Temer to quit alone, and Dilma staying is nowhere to be found in those numbers… quite absurd. Or biased..
And, people want new elections… but you can’t always get what you want…
Please learn how to read.
The very first section of the article says this: “62% of Brazilians want Dilma and Temer to quit and new elections held: not 3% as Folha stated”
The article goes on to say: “The unpublished data from Datafolha shows that 62% of Brazilians favor the resignations of Dilma and Temer. ”
So it repeatedly states expressly what you claim we omitted – including in the very first section of the article.
Of course there are times when we highlight the part about 62% wanting Temer to quit – because that’s the part that directly contradicts Folha’s claim that 50% want him to stay through the term. But to claim we didn’t including it is pure idiocy.
Moreover, as we detailed, many of the people saying “no” to “both leave” are PT loyalists, meaning that they only said “no” because they want Dilma to return, not Temer to stay. So the number of those who want Temer to stay is tiny.
That said, we repeatedly made clear the 62% number applies to both of them resigning.
No need to be so patronizing. You are a renowned journalist and by now should have learnt how to deal with criticism without attacking. I did read what you wrote.
I saw you wrote that over and over, but on the conclusion of your article you did not. Why did you not explicitly put that?
You claimed folha’s error as either fraud or recklessness. One can wonder the same about omitting the real wish of the people on the very ending of your article.
And would be fair enough for you to state that the people do not want Dilma back, regardless of the scenarios asked. After all, if this site is among other things about democracy, this is what the result of the poll shows about people’s wishes.
Oh, there is, there truly is. Your performance in these Brazil threads has shown you to be a hack of the first order. A dishonest one who despises democracy (tho you are commendably upfront about that) and who detests Greenwald’s journalism for bursting the bubble for oligarchical, authoritarian rule.
Let me fix that for you:
Democracies aren’t run by polls – for exactly the reason demonstrated here, that they are very susceptible to manipulation. They’re run by this thing called “elections” – the last one of which in Brazil was held 20 months ago and Dilma won with 54 million votes.
As for Dilma returning, we extensively discussed the poll’s finding that 32% want her to return, and 38% believe impeachment is violating democratic norms and the Constitution.
It’s not very effective for you to claim that we don’t discuss things when everyone with eyes can see that we have discussed exactly those things.
“They’re run by this thing called “elections” ”
Republics are run by this thing called law. You can say whatever you want, that this is a parliamentary coup, that this is a soft coup, but you cannot change the rules while the game is on because you are losing.
BTW, you haven’t said anything about the people who wrote and filed the impeachment in the congress, why is that?
And democracy is not a free pass to rule over the law.
Incredible that you seem to be infuriated because the author didn’t include the wording your prefer only once. The whole article makes it clear that the pool shows that both Dilma and Temer should resign. You clearly want to pick a fight with the author, who did an extraordinary service to Brazilians by showing the manipulation of news going on in mainstream media.
“And would be fair enough for you to state that the people do not want Dilma back, regardless of the scenarios asked.”
Something you don’t realize is that Dilma’s impeachment is illegal according to the constitution. According to the constitution a sitting president can not be impeached for the things that Dilma is being investigated for.
There for legally Dilma should be exonerated and restored to her post regardless of what the polls say people want. She won the election and if the public does not like her they can vote someone else in when the new elections come around.
Circumventing the constitution, even if the public majority wants it done, is not an option at this point.
Illegal how?
The forensic report by the senate the defense fiercely asked for just proved that 2 accusations of the 3 filed in the impeachment happened – the 3rd is corruption claims that has nothing to do with accounting so it was not subject of the report.
“According to the constitution a sitting president can not be impeached for the things that Dilma is being investigated for.”
Wrong. What a sitting president cannot answer are charges she may have committed before she became president. All the charges filed in the impeachment is from her second term.
“She won the election and if the public does not like her they can vote someone else in when the new elections come around.”
ok.
What articles of the constitution you say were circumvented?
illegal in the fact that the Brazilian Constitution states that the president can only be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanor. Neither the 2 charges against her that have been proven are high crime or misdemeanor. There are acounting issues.
You guys are in denial. You can’t even point what circumvention on the constitution you claim that was made.
High crimes or misdemeanor??? She made budgetary crimes.
These crimes you try to diminish as “accounting issues” are the very responsibility/malversation crimes that can lead to impeachment, had you taken some time to read the law.
But this is no difficult at all, c’mon, you can do it too, just google it:
Brazilian constitution, articles 85-86
Brazilian law 1079/50, article 10
Dilma is a dead president walking…. Nobody buys her victimism anymore….
Everyone is of course free to do as they please, but I personally think it’s time to start ignoring this troll, Thomas. Except to point out he is a troll, and I have bookmarked some old threads to demonstrate that which I’ll pull out for linking when I announce him as a troll.
That way he can’t disrupt the discussion.
The research does not show what you say . See , I and many other Brazilians do not want new elections . We want the return of President Dilma . But research invents : all people who do not want new elections , they want Temer. Bizarre manipulation.
Read it again, it does not say anywhere that “all people who do not want new elections , they want Temer. ”
What it says is that the majority of the people wants new elections.
And, in case the election is not possible, the majority prefer Temer over Dilma.
If you want gigi to be less patronizing, lead by example.
You’ve been entirely upfront about your disdain for democarcy. So this attitude is not a surprise.
Please cite the specific data supporting that assertion. Bear in mind that a Brazilian ministry has just announced that Dilma did not commit an impeachable offense.
What you are talking about? What are these articles all about? Can’t you deduce that by yourself? on Glenn’s own words:
1- this article: “the percentage that favors new elections increases to 62% when the polling firm asked about this explicitly.”
2- last article: “One can only say that 50 percent want Temer to stay if the only other choice is Dilma returns. ”
What ministry, can you be more especific? Bear in mind that even if some ministry did say that, he or she has no say over that, only the congress (now in the senate)…
Jesus on a crutch, but you are a transparent shill, and a total hoot.
And you accused me before of spewing ad hominem…. enlight me what you mean by those please…
Which you were, rather than address substantive arguments. I no longer care to address your anti-democratic, oligarch-supporting propaganda, as I’ve done that quite enough to make clear what it is that you are.
So now I’m simply expressing my dismay at what you are and putting it right out there.
oligarch-supporting propaganda???
Is it really necessary to spend next 6 months pointing out that “criticism of Clinton” ? “support for Trump”? Just get a different tactic.
You don’t “criticize.” You spout fallacious bullshit and hand-wave about nonsense all in support of authoritarian-oligarchs. Exactly the type who so disdains democracy, a disdain you completely admit to.
My daily quota of ad verecundiam fallacy for you:
A perfect democracy is therefore the most shameless thing in the world. “Edmund Burke”
Democracy means simply the bludgeoning of the people by the people for the people. “Oscar Wilde”
A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine. “Thomas Jefferson”
Democracy has nothing to do with freedom. Democracy is a soft variant of communism, and rarely in the history of ideas has it been taken for anything else. “Hans-Hermann Hoppe”
It has been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity. “Alexander Hamilton”
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. “Benjamin Frankin (or not)”
This sub-thread is a clear attempt to distract from the primary issue brought up by the article: journalistic fraud and corruption.
Whatever you say, Jose… Im talking about points I think is relevant. If you think it is not, just ignore it.
To end the discussion. International Court decided: impeachment attempt is coup. http://jornalggn.com.br/noticia/impeachment-de-dilma-e-golpe-de-estado-decide-tribunal-internacional
“International Court”, huh?
Who would take this theatrical “judgement” seriously.
Perhaps we no longer are a sovereign country and “international courts” will have the final word, despite we have our own institutions….
Hi! I know where is the first version of the document. Click here: http://media.folha.uol.com.br/datafolha/2016/07/18/av_presidente_michel_temer.pdf (there are 17 more pages)
What about the polling institute, Datafolha? Aren’t they also in on this?
Afterall, in your previous article you mentioned this about their spokesperson:
‘ She acknowledged that it is misleading to state that 3 percent of Brazilians want new elections “since the respondents were not asked this question.” ‘
But turns out they DID ask that question. Do you believe she only knew about the V2 version adulterated by the newspaper, but not the original version from her own company?
What’s also messy is that both are actually owned by the same Grupo Folha. It makes their relationship even more suspicious and dubious.
Wow!!! Folha and their editors should go to trial for this. Congrats on uncovering this fraud. Democracy will prevail.
I was going to suggest you’re being very generous allowing their fraud could be mere recklessness, when clearly Folha believes it’s Brazil’s democracy that’s “journalistically irrelevant.” After all, its editors do appear to be serving Brazilians intentional lies – and that’s not just ineptitude. Except when I thought about it, Fox News here frequently employs both half-truth fraud and incompetence – in what’s long appeared an intentional Murdoch/Ailes strategy, so there’s that.
What do want to bet their motive$ in the end are somehow very $imilar?
I think RSF might have to reconsider their Brazil press freedom rating, if only because of the highly significant Glenn Greenwald corrective.
Yup, that is a big story.
Maybe you could loan out Micah Lee to Folha to teach them about how not to use hard coded URLs….Send someone to give them a talk about journalistic ethics at the same time.
Say Glenn, I recall reading rumblings from certain Brazilian quarters to prohibit foreign reporting, expelling foreign journos, or some such. I’d say you just made that policy goal far more attractive.
Not too likely while still trying to put on an Olympics. But after, maybe, or – maybe just foreign journos whose fist and last name both begin with “G.”
Yup, they absolutely meant Glenn. As I recall, one of Brazil’s big papers ran an editorial saying that foreign journalists — specifically naming Glenn — – were engaged in an active dirty campaign of disinformation and subversion against the state. This was in the context of Brazil’s Federal Police having just issued a notice “reminding” everyone that political activism on Brazilian soil by foreigners is barred by law and can result in expulsion.
Ha!
That was Lula, who wanted to kick Larry Rohter of NYT from Brazil, because he exposed he had/have alcohol problems.
PT was never fond of press freedom. Once he exposed the president, the president wanted to shut him and kick him out of Brazil.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/09/world/brazilian-leader-s-tippling-becomes-national-concern.html?_r=0
http://www.ambito-juridico.com.br/site/index.php?n_link=revista_artigos_leitura&artigo_id=3833
No, Lula did that to a specific NYT reporter. I’m alluding to commentary in the last several months in the wake of Greenwald/The Intercept’s reporting.
Besides the fact that Larry Rohter had done no journalism whatsoever. It was just a tabloid piece where he said Lula was an alcoholic while commander in chief just because he heard Lula was an alcoholic before presidency at some point… despite there having ABSOLUTELY ZERO evidence that Lula was still an alcoholic. That premise works only if you go start by believing no alcoholic in the history of ever could ever recover. And Lula had quite a reason to be alcoholic in the past, considering that Globo had outright edited his most important debate with Fernando Collor in 1989 to show the Brazilian public ONLY Collor’s best responses and ONLY Lula’s worst responses… and received precisely ZERO consequences for the fact, winning Collor a only SLIGHTLY less tighter win than Dilma’s win in 2014.
Then Collor was found out to have funneled BILLIONS in US$ to his friends and family and resigned after he was voted out UNANIMOUSLY. But Collor still is, to this day, the favorable kind of candidate for the likes of you: Someone who is utterly corrupt but also rich and who only makes policy in favor of the oligarchs.
First of all, it’s not up to you to judge whether what Larry Rother wrote is quality journalism. He could write the utmost shitty gossip about anything or anyone and it should not be a reason for a Head of State to suspend his working visa and shut him out of Brazil. We are not Cuba nor Venezuela.
As for Lula, he cannot complain about the scrutiny he suffers; after all, who runs for president must expect all of his rotten to come to surface. The ones who can’t stand the game, shouldn’t come to the playground… And then, your assumption of Lula drowning his frustration on alcohol for 15 years – from 1990’s debate until Larry Rother’s article in 2005 – does not seem a recovery.
And painting Collor as the devil, I agree. The only problem is that, despite being opponents in the past, nowadays Collor and Lula are like best friends in life and politics. They deserve each other. As for me, I don’t give a f*** about them. The sooner they’re in their graves, the best.
Imagine that. If Michel Temer does not like what’s in the Intercept, could he treat GG the same way Lula treated Larry Rother?? I don’t think so.
Vergonha, vergonha, vergonha( hem Boris Casoy, vão ficar calado?)
Tenho sessenta anos completos agora, vi meu pai morrer sem ter um candidato em quem votou ganhar a eleição . Logo depois do final da ditadura, sempre a Veja na véspera das eleições enumerava os ganhadores em cada Estadp e eu dormir na maior tristeza Em 2006 quando Waldir Pires ganhou as eleições aqui na Bahia foi um “ponto fora da curva” o povo deu o troco e eles tomaram o maior susto Tem uma foto da época com a cara de ACM desolado. Enfim isso ocorre há anos e não tenho mais esperança que vá mudar
Parabéns pela reportagem e o compromisso com a verdade Será que as jornalistas da Globo News e do Jô leram? E a consciência dói ?
This is precious: it is “the prerogative of the paper to chose what it believes is ‘most journalistically relevant’ when it decides to publish a poll.”
Journalistic corruption is most certainly not ineptitude.
This is simply astounding, the extend of the duplicity and journalistic fraud. The U.S. media has committed many crimes against truth, but I cannot think of anything this brazen.
Has the Brazilian media typically been able to so easily — and severely — distort its “reporting” such that this isn’t that odd for them, and they figured it wouldn’t be noticed?
This is also precious: “The U.S. media has committed many crimes against truth, but I cannot think of anything this brazen.”
You never hesitate to quote brazen lies in the NYT when you double down on your own lies.
You are no different, SocPup. Don’t you think it isn’t being noticed?
Just one of her factual errors.
This person is likely mentally ill; he considers himself a “Targeted Individual,” as did the paranoid man who shot the cops in Baton Rouge. This thread should not yet again devolve into that topic, and anyone interested can read of his affliction, and his “evidence” for the plots against him, in this older thread. (Beginning with my comment highlighted in grey.)
Spin this, shill.
Earlier it was Myron May and nano-attacks but that didn’t work. Now sock puppet associates me with a man who “shot the cops”. You are a real piece of work.
Can you spin these too while astounding everyone with your hypocrisy and knowledge of Brazil?
Yeah, big Brazilian media has always been this corrupt. This kind of manipulation goes way back to the dictatorship years, when a few families that held control of newspapers and magazines helped the coup and got ahold of broadcasting rights for TV and radio.
So you have less than 10 families that control virtually all of the media in circulation within a country, all of them with the same kind of political leaning and trying to protect their own and their associates’ interests.
Why is the MSM everywhere so corrupt?(West)
Serial liars all,in the tank for Brazilian and American(everywhere actually) criminals,Temer and HRC.
Nothing to see here,move along.