In attempting to analyze the convoluted system of Brazilian politics (see my current diary series on the 2010 Elections), one factor continually rises to the surface: the power of the media. In this diary, I will look at how media concentration in Brazil influences elections, and see what parallels or contrasts can be drawn with the North American situation.
Brazilian media in the 20th Century has been dominated by the power and influence of Roberto Marinho and his Rede Globo (Globo Network). While the country was redemocratized in the late 1980s, the media networks set up during the military dictatorship, with all their incestuous interrelationships, persist to this day.
A powerful and straightforward documentary describing the ideological control of the media in Brazil and how it arose, was produced in 1993 and broadcast on British television. This documentary, entitled Beyond Citizen Kane, focused especially on the singularly powerful Rede Globo and its founder, Roberto Marinho, who passed away in 2003. Seventeen years later, this film has yet to be aired anywhere within the territory of Brazil nor released on DVD.
Rede Globo rose to power during the 1960s, following the CIA-supported military coup in 1964, which removed President João Goulart from office. At that time, Roberto Marinho was the owner of a large Rio de Janeiro newspaper named O Globo (The Globe). O Globo had consistently been a strong supporter of the conservative, anti-socialist forces in Brazil, and following the coup, vociferously defended what it called "the Revolution," painting the takeover by the military as a popular revolution to remove Goulart and prevent Brazil from heading down the road to Cuba-style communism.
In attempting to modernize Brazil, the military leaders paid special attention to communications. Prior to the 1960s, most television and radio stations were locally-owned and covered very little of the country outside of the major capitals. Rede Globo was not the first Brazilian network - competitor Rede Tupi actually had begun a few years earlier. But Globo had financial backing from the American Time-Life (an illegal arrangement at that time) far in excess of money domestically available. They quickly built up the largest network, creating the first nationally broadcast news program, Jornal Nacional, in 1969.
Jornal Nacional became the propaganda arm of the military regime. Roberto Marinho was known for going above and beyond the regime's censorship rules to curry favor and eventual influence. The relationship became one of mutual interest - the regime used Globo to spread its views, and Globo gained huge financial benefits by being the faithful supporter. This influence was especially powerful in the world of art. Any musician or writer, for example, who did not express complete support for the revolution, would be completely blacklisted by Globo. Not only would a controversial opinion be blocked, but the artist's entire career. In the media sphere, that person would simply cease to exist, never to be mentioned. Globo's became so strong that Roberto Marinho himself was considered by many to be the real power behind the government.
In the 1980s, democracy returned to Brazil, but not to the media. Even without the government pressure to censor or conform, Globo continued with the same ideological mindset under which it had been nurtured and developed. The most famous case is the presidential election of 1989, where Globo essentially created Fernando Collor de Mello, and built him up to be the "sane, rational moderate" as contrasted with the "radical, dangerous" Lula. To reinforce this narrative, the network went so far as to adjust the lighting at the presidential debate to cast Lula in dark ("scary") shadows. Beyond that, they even edited the broadcast in order to make Lula's answers seem less coherent and more frightening. All of this manipulation worked, and Collor was able to win by a margin of 53%-47%.
Today, Globo continues with the largest television audience, usually larger than rivals SBT, Record, and Band put together. It has become a vicious circle - with such a huge audience, advertising rates on Globo are much higher than anywhere else. Therefore, Globo's income dwarfs it's rivals, it is able to produce shows of cinema quality with top-level actors, and it therefore is able to attract the largest audience, etc... As ideological partners, the weekly newsmagazines Veja, Isto É, and Época provide support and "cover" for Globo's political opinion-shaping.
But what has happened? Isn't Lula president now? Isn't PT perched on the edge of an electoral tsunami? Has Globo lost its touch? Only time will tell, but quite possibly, yes. In 2002, Lula remade his public persona, appearing in suits and ties instead of the customary blue-collar shirt, began speaking the moderate economic line, and slowly but surely began to capture the political center that had become turned off by the stagnant economy and right-ward shift of FHC in his second term. I can't go so far as to say that Globo became a supporter of Lula, but this time they backed off of their opposition.
In 2006, they returned to form. A few months before Lula's re-election, a congressional scandal known as the mensalão became public, and Globo, Veja, and all the other golpista media flogged it for all it was worth. Months and months of leading the news with various PT members of Congress, advisors to Lula, all rumoured to be a part of this great big mess of corruption. Night after night after night... And yet, the polls barely moved. Lula remained popular, his government remained popular, and he won re-election handily. (Note: I am not commenting on the truth or falsity of the scandal itself. I'm not so naive to think that any party is innocent of corruption in Brazil. The issue is with the vast overreaction of Globo, Veja, et al. to this scandal as compared to a myriad of others.)
The same is happening again in 2010 - just last week Veja magazine reported on a scandal involving the son of one of Dilma Rousseff's former advisors. José Serra immediately jumped on this and has mentioned it in all his campaign ads. Globo is reporting on it as something that Veja investigated (as if the two aren't partners in this). And still, the polls aren't moving. One polling agency, Sensus, reported that they saw a drop of 5% in support for Dilma among the most wealthy segment of voters -- needless to say, not a very large segment in Brazil. Worse for Serra, this 5% shifted their support to Green Party candidate Marina Silva!
The biggest takeaway is that negative campaigning doesn't seem to work anymore in Brazil. For candidates themselves, it has always been problematic. Once breath of fresh air living down here has been to not have to be subjected to the parade of nasty, baseless political ads that are ubiquitous in the States. The reason you rarely see them is because they almost always backfire. Go on the attack and you look like an asshole! Your negatives go up and you even generate sympathy for the "attackee." Therein lay the hidden advantage of the right wing: a powerful media ally with a near monopoly who could do your dirty work for you under the guise of "objective journalism" while you could "stay above the fray" and run positive ads. But now it seems as if the veneer of objectivity has cracked. More and more people seem to recognize Globo's editorializing in reporter's clothing for what it is.
There are many theories to explain why this is, but here's mine. In 2000, only 2.9% of Brazilians had access to the Internet. In 2005, the government set up incentives to help low-income families purchase computers, and this lead to skyrocketing sales. By 2006, internet usage had risen to 17.2% and by 2008 (the last year for which I've been able to find data) it had reached 34.4%. Brazilians also spend more time surfing the internet than citizens of any other country, on average 24 hours per month.
In other words, the traditional media is being completely outflanked. Globo has lost none of its dominant marketshare, yet its ability to shape public opinion is steadily weakening. Obviously, the results are not yet in for 2010, and there are still 18 days left before the elections for more shenanigans to take place, but it certainly appears that control of the public discourse is democratizing in a way never before seen in history. There is an old Brazilian joke that says, "Brazil is the country of the future, and always will be." Maybe, just maybe, the future is now.