‘Publicizing disinformation violates journalistic ethics’, says

Senator Flávio Bolsonaro (PL-RJ), son of former president Jair Bolsonaro (PL), used his time on the program Roda Vivafrom TV Cultura, this Monday (8), to attack the Superior Electoral Court (TSE) and spread misinformation.

The parliamentarian attributed his father’s defeat in the 2022 presidential election to alleged interference by the TSE in the electoral process that would have favored the winner Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (PT).

“The entire electoral process was not impartial. It was not balanced between Lula and Bolsonaro. What the TSE did before, during and after the elections, it was very clear to everyone that it weighed much more in favor of one side than the other You will remember that we were censored from telling many truths about Lula”, he said once again without providing evidence.

Flávio Bolsonaro’s interview raised the debate about what the limits are for conveying incorrect information. Gyssele Mendes, from the executive coordination of Intervozes – Coletivo Brasil de Comunicação Social and master and doctoral student in communication, states that the dissemination of disinformation violates the ethical principles of journalism.

“When erroneous information is being conveyed, broadcasters and press professionals have an ethical duty to correct the information” at the same time the information is disseminated, says Mendes.

Such mediation and correction, argues the communicator, should not be seen as censorship. “Mediation is based on the principle that there is a dialogue with divergent positions being put forward. This is part of the public debate. With censorship, there is no dialogue, what exists is just restriction and silencing.”

Check the interview in full:

Brasil de Fato: Is it correct to broadcast interviews that spread misinformation? At what point does it stop being correct?

Gyssele Mendes: It is not new that radio and TV stations play the role of disinforming society. We just need to look at any mainstream media coverage of social movements, demonstrations by the Brazilian left or any fact that goes against the political and economic interests of the broadcasters.

However, we cannot lose sight of the fact that radio and TV stations are public concessions, with the constitutional duty to serve informational, educational, among other purposes, in accordance with chapter V of the Federal Constitution. When they position themselves as a space for the dissemination of disinformation, they violate a constitutional principle.

Furthermore, the Code of Ethics for Brazilian Journalists, in its 2nd article, defines that “the dissemination of accurate and correct information is the duty of the media and must be complied with”. In other words, the dissemination of disinformation through the media also means violating the ethical principles of journalism.

How should press professionals carry out this mediation?

When misleading information is being conveyed, broadcasters and press professionals have an ethical duty to correct the information. This in no way can be considered censorship, as there is no silencing, there is no impediment to expression, but rather the correction of information known to be incorrect. Journalists have a duty to disclose facts and information of public interest and must speak out if they are faced with information that contradicts this.

What type of mediation can be considered censorship?

I think mediation and censorship are completely different things. The first assumes that there is a dialogue with divergent positions being put forward. This is for public debate. With censorship, there is no dialogue, what exists is only restriction and silencing, there is no contrary manifestation possible in an episode of censorship. We saw this happen recently in numerous episodes during the Bolsonaro government.

Disinformation must be seen as a political strategy aimed at profit, be it financial, symbolic, political capital, among others. Therefore, the dissemination of disinformation is not something naive on the part of broadcasters and they must be charged for it.

What are the losses to society from broadcasting this type of interview that conveys misinformation?

The damage to society is immense and there is no shortage of examples. Electoral processes, both in Brazil and elsewhere in the world, have been widely affected by the rampant spread of misinformation. Who profits from this? You need to look at that too.

We cannot be trapped in innocuous solutions, in a game of just denying what is being said or criminalizing the person at the end of this chain, this is drying up. We have to follow the money, seek to hold those who are profiting from this accountable, seek measures that directly affect the business model of those who are profiting from this type of strategy

Do you believe that interviews that spread misinformation over the last few years have contributed to the level of misinformation in society and the advancement of the extreme right in the country?

The far right took very good ownership of disinformation as a strategy and quickly understood how to use digital platforms in particular to their advantage. The game they play between traditional and digital media is exemplary in this sense. Far-right politicians go to the mainstream media already prepared to stage the video that will soon be disseminated on social media, with the perfect cut for the algorithms to distribute.

This has certainly contributed to the advancement of the far right and I believe that digital platforms play a central role in this, with a business model based on surveillance, capture and processing of an immensity of data that we have no idea how they are used, because there is transparency on the part of companies.

Editing: Matheus Alves de Almeida