by John Fitzpatrick

I hesitate to add another word to the millions which have been written about the attempt to expel the New York Times reporter over his unconvincing article alleging that President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva´s drinking habits had become a matter of “national concern”. By calling for the reporter to be expelled, Lula not only made Brazil appear to be a country where press freedom was at risk but he also lost a massive amount of support and sympathy he had gained when the article appeared.

Even opposition supporters initially rallied round him and criticized the article which relied on questionable sources, some anonymous, and failed to show that Lula´s performance had been affected in any way by heavy drinking. The headline: "Brazilian Leader´s Tippling Becomes National Concern" was not substantiated one whit.

Lula also managed to upset the Brazilian and international media - an arrogant clique which is always ready to defend its own, even if the journalist does not always merit its support. Being a reporter means never having to say you´re sorry, especially if you work for the NYT which refused to retract a comma. The result was that Lula was given a pasting by the press at home and abroad. Every editorialist from London to Los Angeles was able to fill space with rhetoric and cant about freedom of speech.

Little Support

Even in Brazil it was difficult to find anyone prepared to back Lula publicly after the announcement that the government had cancelled the reporter´s visa. The official press spokesman, Andre Singer, had an article published in the Folha de S. Paulo justifying the decision but the rest of the paper was packed with critical comments and readers´ letters. It was only a few days later that several letters appeared approving of expelling of the reporter.

The only paper I saw on the day after the announcement which published several pro-Lula letters was the Jornal do Brasil. This paper is published in Rio de Janeiro but is widely read among politicians in Brasilia but why its readers should appear to be more supportive of the move than say those of the Estado de S. Paulo, for example, is a mystery unless, of course, the other papers simply published only those letters they agreed with. This is feasible but overall, there were fewer letters of support than one might have expected given the widespread anti-Americanism which exists here.

It was heartening to see so many politicians, commentators and ordinary people criticizing this move since, at times, the media and ordinary Brazilians can be hypersensitive to criticism from foreigners. One of the reasons why there was such a backlash was because many Brazilians can still remember the days of the military dictatorship and felt that Lula´s action was unpleasantly reminiscent of that period. The fact that he even used a law dating from military rule was another unpleasant reminder. For someone like Lula, who helped return Brazil to democracy, to use such a law was regarded with distaste.

© John Fitzpatrick 2004