Veja parody issue, dated September 25, 1929. “NYSE: A safe investment with guaranteed returns. Also in this issue: Nazi plans for building the world’s safest airship!” Source: Desiclopedia (Brazil). Hilarious. Straight on target. Click to zoom.
Consultor Jurídico (Brazil): A former government minister fails in yet another libel suit against Veja magazine, the legal affairs news service reports.
The case apparently turned on something similar to the “actual malice” standard that applies to libel suits against American news organizations.
Regardless of whether Veja’s reporting was factually erroneous, the plaintiff did not meet the burden of proving that it was maliciously so.
It is not illegal or tortious (as the lawyers say) to be incompetent, careless, or cavalier with the facts.
The judge apparently finds that the news magazine cannot be held responsible for any piddling little errors in factual detail in its reporting.
The moral to be drawn from the case, as far as I can tell, is that Veja, once more, reported nonexistent facts. Veja has a jaw-dropping track record for confidently publishing untrue statements, as far as I can tell (and I have studied up a bit on the question).
Furthermore, Veja tends to assert that (1) factual accuracy is not its responsibility and (2) that its journalism is credible.
Both of which can’t be true at the same time.
Which is why me and Mrs. Sousaphone don’t buy it.
Consultor Jurídico has a personal beef with one of the figures named in this case, by the way.
Demarco accuses it of having extraordinary credibility problems due to undisclosed conflicts of interest. See
Luiz Gushiken, ex-ministro de Comunicação do governo Lula, perdeu outro processo contra a revista Veja e o jornalista Lauro Jardim. Gushiken pedia indenização de R$ 50 mil por danos morais porque a revista publicou em 2006 uma nota sobre um jantar que compartilhou com o empresário Luís Roberto Demarco. No entanto, para o juiz Régis Rodrigues Bonvicino, da 1ª Vara Cível do Fórum de Pinheiros em São Paulo, Gushiken não tem direito de reclamar porque a Veja publicou resposta dele na edição seguinte à da nota.
Luiz Gushiken, ex-minister of social communications for the Lula government, lost another case against Veja magazine and journalist Lauro Jardim. He had asked for R$50,000 in damages over a 2006 story story about a dinner he shared with businessman Luis Roberto Demarco. Judge Rodrigues Bonvicino of the First Civil Bar of Pinheiros, São Paulo, found that Gushiken had no right to complain because Veja published his rebuttal to the note in the following edition.
That does seem minimally fair, on the face of it, although First World ethical standards would also demand a retraction if the information reported turned out to be false.
In this case, the plaintiff brought in the maitre d’ of the restaurant to attest to the factual inaccuracy of Veja’s reporting, but the judge found that it would have been too difficult for the news magazine to have fact-checked the details of its reporting with — oh, say, the maitre d’ of the restaurant.
Demarco is a former business partner of Daniel Dantas who had a falling out with Dantas and wind up in litigation with the banker in the Caymans.
The Caymans judge and the U.K. Privy Council found that Dantas and his sister had falsified defense evidence in the case, in which Demarcos prevailed.
Gushiken was said to have lobbied on behalf of pension funds who wanted to remove Dantas’ group from management at Brasil Telecom — which they eventually succeeded in doing. On which see also
Na coluna Radar, Lauro Jardim informou que “Gushiken revelou-se requintado… serviu-se de uma garrafa de Grand Vin de Chateau Latour, safra 1994, um tinto apreciadíssimo. O néctar do Pauillac custa 2 990 reais a garrafa. Depois, o ‘China’ acendeu um charuto cubano… Total da brincadeira: 3 500 reais. A conta foi paga em dinheiro vivo rachada entre os dois”. Na edição seguinte, a revista colocou nota de Gushiken, que admite que jantou no restaurante Magari com Demarco, como informou a coluna.
In his Radar column, Jardim reported that “Gushiken revealed himself to be extremely well-heeled … he was served a very expensive Grand Vin de Chateau Latuour 1994 … which costs R$2,990 a bottle. Later, “The Chinaman” lit up a Cuban cigar … total cost: R$3,500. The bill was split between the two of them and paid in cash.” In the following edition, the magazine ran a note from Gushiken in which he admits he had dinner at Magari with Demarco, as the column reported.
“The Chinaman”: Gushiken is a Bracuzo-Japanese labor unionist who worked in PR, I think, for the state-owned Banco do Brasil. I could be wrong, but that is what I think I remember.
Na Justiça, o ex-ministro reclamou que o texto de Veja dizia que ele, apesar de não ter renda, teria pagado caríssimo por um jantar, insinuando que ele não seria idôneo. Gushiken sustentou que a nota foi infamante e inverídica porque o valor do jantar divulgado não corresponde ao que foi efetivamente pago. O ex-ministro disse que a conta foi paga com cartão de crédito e não com dinheiro.
In court, the former minister complained that the Veja article claimed that, although he had no income, he supposedly paid a very large sum for a meal, insinuating thereby that he was ethically compromised. Gushiken argued that the note was defamatory and untrue because Veja misreported the cost of the meal. He said the bill was paid by credit card and not in cash.
He also says he brought his own wine and that the cigar was Brazilian, not Cuban. He called the head waiter as a witness, who confirmed his story.
Para o juiz Bonvicino, no entanto, não se pode falar de malícia já que a Veja permitiu que ele apresentasse a sua versão. “Quando o veículo abre espaço para resposta, o Tribunal de Justiça do estado de São Paulo tem entendido que não há dano moral a ser reparado.”
Judge Bonvicino, however, ruled that Veja could not be characterized as malicious because it allowed him to present his side of the story. “Because the magazine permitted a response, the state high court has ruled that no damages apply.”
O juiz citou decisão da 10ª Câmara de Direito Privado do TJ-SP adotada em maio deste ano. Nela, o desembargador Jomar Juarez Amorim, relator, disse que, no caso que julgava, “embora evidente o erro, aqui se entende que não houve má-fé, sobretudo porque diante da retificação da notícia na edição de 24/10/04, na primeira página e no editorial. Afastada a malícia na publicação, não há falar em reparação civil, conferindo-se primazia à liberdade de imprensa”.
The judge cited a decision from May of this year, in which Judge Amorim said, “although the error is evident, there was no bad faith, given the correction of the report published in the 25 October 2004 edition on the first page and in the editorial. Since the publication did not act maliciously, there can be no civil tort, given that freedom of the press has priority.
A Editora Abril e o jornalista foram defendidos pelo advogado Alexandre Fidalgo e Cynthia Romano do escritório Lourival J. Santos Advogados.
Editora Abril and the journalist were defended by … the law offices of Lourival J. Santos.
Their usual lawyers. I think they are right here in the neighborhood.
I wonder if they would help me with my permanent resident’s visa?
It seems the case finally came out all right — the FBI attests that I have no criminal record, and our accountant has our income tax in good shape — but our lawyer took a long time to take care of it because he himself got busted and indicted in the middle of it on charges of being the bag man in an R$18 million a year scheme, run by city inspectors and the deputy mayor for the Mooca district, to extort street vendors.
I don’t think the guy knows we know this.
If he’s lucky, he’ll get Nélio Machado or Lourival Santos to represent him.
No processo movido por Gushiken contra Veja, a secretária-executiva da Casa Civil e braço direito de Dilma Rousseff, Erenice Alves Guerra, foi chamada para ser testemunha. Erenice ganhou fama com o caso do dossiê dos cartões corporativos. Ela afirmou que não tem relação pessoal com Gushiken.
In the suit brought by Gushiken against Veja, the executive-secretary of the federal Casa Civil, Erenice Alves Guerra, was called as a witness. He had gained fame in the case of the “dossier of the corporate credit cards.” He said he has no personal relationship with Gushiken.
Lembrou que a nota foi publicada quando ele já tinha saído da Secretaria de Comunicação do governo. Apesar disso, Erenice conta que o texto provocou brincadeiras e piadas em relação ao ex-ministro. O juiz considerou mera ilação o fato de ela achar que a nota confirmava a existência do mensalão e abuso do PT no manuseio do dinheiro público.
He recalled that the note was published after he had left office as presidential spokesman, but said that the report had provoked jokes about and mockery of the former government spokesman and communications coordinator. The judge considered the claim that Jardim’s note implied the existence of the “big monthly allowance” and abuse of public funds by Gushiken’s party to be a mere inference.
O maître do restaurante Ramiro Lopes também foi chamado para testemunhar e confirmou que Gushiken jantou com o empresário Luis Roberto Demarco. Segundo Lopes, o Magari é um dos restaurantes mais caros do país, onde um vinho pode custa R$ 30 mil. Ele é freqüentado por personalidades como Márcio Thomaz Bastos, Hebe Camargo, Roberto Justus, Jorge Bornhausen, Nizan Guanaes, Gilberto Kassab e Washington Oliveto.
The maitre d’ of the restaurant, a Mr Lopes, was called as a witness and confirmed that Gushiken and Demarco had dined there. According to Lopes, Magari is one of the most expensive restaurants in Brazil, where a bottle of wine can go for R$30,000. It is frequented by such persons as former justice minister Bastos, TV personality Hebe Camargo … Sen. Bornhausen … São Paulo mayor-elect Gilberto Kassab, and ad executive Washington Oliveto.
O juiz chama atenção para o fato de políticos freqüentarem o restaurante. “Todo homem público é mais visado que o homem anônimo. Entendo que a publicação da nota em si não foi ofensiva à sua honra, porque o maître Lopez confirma que Gushiken jantou com um empresário de porte, tomou vinho e fumou um charuto”, afirma Bonvicino.
The judge called attention to the fact that politicians frequent the restaurant. “Every public man is more closely watched than anonymous individuals are. I find that the publication of the note was not offensive to his honor, because the maitre d’ confirms that Gushiken dined with a notable businessman, drank wine, and smoked a cigar,” Bonvicino wrote.
O maître diz que Gushiken levou seu próprio vinho e que o charuto era nacional. Segundo o juiz, é difícil para uma revista apurar esse tipo de nuança. “O glamour do restaurante Magari faz crer que é muito raro que seus clientes levem suas garrafas de vinho para acompanharem seus jantares, inclusive, pelo preço dos vinhos vendidos na carta. Seu lucro está precisamente na venda de bebidas caras”, argumentou. Bonvicino considerou estranho um empresário ou um ex-ministro levar ao restaurante sua própria garrafa.
The maitre d’ said that Gushiken brought his own wine and that the cigar was Brazilian. According to the judge, it is very difficult for a magazine to verify this type of detail.
Veja is too incompetent, and cannot be held responsible for failing, to verify information that it publishes.
And yet it wants you to pay money for it and believe in its credibility. Go figure.
“The glamor of the restaurant leads one to believe that it is rare for customers to bring their own wine to go with their meals, especially because of the prices on the wine list. It makes its money specifically from selling expensive wine.” Bonvicino thought it strange for the two men to bring their own wine.
If I were going to eat there, and they let me, I would bring my own wine, too. R$3,000 my ass! A R$65 Mendonça merlot would be just fine.
Segundo o juiz, Gushiken mostrou sensibilidade além da conta ao entrar com uma ação por causa dessa nota. “Num país que viveu 21 anos sob uma ditadura, sem liberdade de imprensa, ela precisa ser respeitada ao extremo, pois cumpre papel de informar os leitores e a sociedade civil”, disse, ao julgar a ação improcedente.
According to the judge, Gushiken displayed excessive sensitivity in suing over this note. “In a nation that lived through 21 years of dictatorship, without freedom of the press, that freedom must be respected in the extreme, for the press plays a role in informing readers and civil society,” he said, in dismissing the case.
Or misinforming, as the case may be.
Did Gushiken pay thousands for wine, smoke a Cuban cigar, and pay in cash?
Or did he bring his own wine, smoke a cheaper cigar, and pay by credit card?
Does it matter?
I think it does.
Bonvicino estipulou que o ex-ministro deve pagar as custas processuais fixadas em 20% do valor da causa porque o processo se estendeu até a instrução e julgamento.
He ordered Gushiken to pay court costs equal to 20% of the damages sought ….
Em janeiro deste ano, o mesmo juiz também julgou improcedente ação de Gushiken contra a Editora Abril por causa da reportagem Ação entre velhos amigos, publicada na revista Veja em 6 de julho de 2005. A reportagem do jornalista Ronaldo França relata a venda da empresa Gushiken & Associados, que passou a se chamar Globalprev.
In January of this year, the same judge dismissed another suit by Gushiken against Editora Abril over a report titled “A deal among old friends,” published in Veja on July 6, 2005. Ronaldo França reported on the sale of Gushiken & Associates, which was renamed Globalprev.
O negócio foi feito no final de 2002, pouco antes de Gushiken assumir a chefia da Secretaria de Comunicação do governo. O texto conta também o favorecimento da empresa para fechar contratos com fundos de pensão de estatais graças à influência de Gushiken.
The deal was done in late 2002, just before Gushiken became government spokesman. The article also relates favorable treatment the company received in receiving contracts from state pension funds thanks to Gushiken’s influence.
O ex-ministro pedia R$ 30 mil por danos morais porque a revista insinuava que ele usava o cargo para favorecer a empresa da qual foi sócio antes de ser ministro. Ele queria que a sentença fosse publicada na revista e no site da Veja.
The former government spokesman sought R$30,000 in damages because the magazine insinuated he used his official position to favor a business in which he was a partner before joining the government. Gushiken wanted the sentence published in the magazine and on the Veja Web site.
O juiz considerou que a matéria era de fato e de direito e não se poderiam produzir mais provas sobre o caso. Além dos papéis apresentados por Gushiken, ele queria que a revista entregasse os documentos em que se baseou para fazer a reportagem. “O pedido é ilegal, pois fere a garantia constitucional da preservação da fonte, o que demonstra que as provas requeridas pelo autor são absolutamente inúteis”, argumentou Bonvicino.
… Gushiken wanted the magazine to produce the documents it based its reporting on. “This request is illegal, because it violates the constitutional right to preserve the confidentiality of sources, which means that the evidence requested by the plaintiff cannot be produced,” he ruled.
Veja magazine is not legally obliged to back its reporting with evidence, and frequently avails itself of that right.
It cannot reasonably be expected to report the facts accurately, because such an expectation places an undue burden on the freedom of the press.
And yet it wants you to lend credence to its reporting and pay money to read it. Go figure.
Na sentença, o juiz não fechou os olhos para o contexto em que a reportagem foi publicada e comentou o quadro de corrupção na política brasileira. “Só um lunático não sabe a insatisfação do povo brasileiro com a corrupção. Há governantes que são verdadeiras fraudes, no caso, não estou mencionando Luiz Gushiken, e sim falando genericamente. É notório que as plataformas de campanha são ‘rasgadas’ assim que os candidatos tomam posse.”
In the ruling, the judge took into account the context in which the report was published, commenting on corruption in Brazilian politics. “Only a lunatic is not aware of the Brazilian public’s discontentment with corruption. There are veritable frauds in the government — and here I am not mentioning Gushiken, just speaking generically. It is a notorious fact that campaign promises are torn out as soon as candidates take office.”
O Brasil é o país recordista mundial de processos contra jornalistas. Uma parcela significativa das ações são ajuizadas taticamente para tentar blindar políticos, empresários e outras personalidades de críticas ou, então, para que suas atividades não sejam divulgadas.
Brazil is the world record-holder in lawsuits against journalists. A significant number are filed tactically in an attempt to insulate politicians, business and other personalities from criticism, or prevent their activities from being reported on.
(Right, the volume of libel actions against Veja is a function of a SLAPP-prone legal system rather than its own utter lack of journalistic integrity. Go ahead, pull the other one.)
Fine, but did Gushiken engage in the misconduct he was accused of?
I would really like to know.
I would like to be able to form an educated opinion over whether this man might be guilty of shady dealings, as Veja insinuates, or is the victim of a ratfink defamation campaign directed by Daniel Dantas, as he claims. Or perhaps a little of both. Or neither.
If Veja cannot and will not provide evidence to back its claims, why should I believe it? Much less buy it?
Writes a certain Mauro, in a comment on the item:
O meu problema, como você já sabe, é com o jornalismo brasileiro. A estratégia atual do nosso jornalismo é explorar o noticiário de uma classe bastante denegrida, a classe política, nisto todos concordam com razão, pois em notícias ruins sobre políticos qualquer um acredita. Jornalistas então se colocam perante a (des)opinião pública como “os bons mocinhos”(vide a campanha pró-jornalistas de A Favorita), mas na verdade praticam os mesmos crimes que os políticos.
My problem, as you know, is with Brazilian journalism. The current strategy of our news media is to exploit news about a class of people with quite a bad reputation, the politicians, about which everyone agrees, and with reason, because everyone is ready to believe negative news about any politician. Journalists therefore position themselves in relation to public opinion as “the good guys” (look at the pro-journalist plot in the Globo soap opera A Favorita) but actually practice the same crimes as the politicians.
Qual é a diferença entre um jornalista subornar um agente público para conseguir um furo e um político subornar um agente público para conseguir arquivar um processo contra ele? A diferença é que no Brasil o sigilo da fonte virou proteção ao crime. Assim, uma revista pode colocar informações inverídicas em suas reportagens para torná-las mais impactante. O jornalismo brasileiro faz campanha antigovernamental de forma sistemática.
What is the difference between a journalist bribing a public employee to get a scoop and a politician bribing a public employee to quash a case against him? The difference is that in Brazil the confidentiality of anonymous sources has become a shield for criminal activity. Thus, a magazine can publish false information in its reporting to make that reporting more sensational. Brazilian journalism conducts a systematic antigovernment campaign.
And what is the difference between a journalist taking a bribe to defame someone and a cop taking a bribe to frame someone, or arresting someone on a false pretext in order to extort them?
Posso citar muitas injustiças que a imprensa cometeu contra FHC, o qual foi tão bom para o Brasil quanto Lula. Até um filho bastardo inventaram para ele. Já pensou que absurdo? Você chegar em casa cansado e dar de cara com a sua mulher te pedindo explicações com a Folha de São Paulo na mão?
I can cite many injustices the press committed against President Cardoso, who did just as much good for Brazil as Lula has. They even invented a bastard kid for him! How absurd is that? Can you imagine coming home tired and there’s your wife with the Folha de S. Paulo in hand, demanding explanations?
You mean that’s not true?
Oh my God! I actually believed that story — that Cardoso had a love child with Globo journalist Miriam Dutra while he was a Senator (and so what, anyway?)
Now, in order to satisfy my curiosity about the truth of the matter, I have to go check it out myself.
Azenha has this summary of the back story on the (alleged) Cardoso love child.
Filed under: Brazil, Journalism, Media, Politics
