A few months ago I received an invitation for an interview to be published in a large-circulation newspaper. During the conversation, which revolved around the theme of literature, the journalist confessed, informally, that the interview would pass through the editor’s scrutiny. Until then I considered it normal. Then he added that the editor’s intention was to assess the need for a counterpoint if I criticized the current government.
I immediately replied that I had no intention of doing it, but what happened was enough to make me reflect on some questions.
First, this is what is meant by freedom of the press. At first, there was no censorship, but the fact that the editor’s assessment of what I was saying was mandatory — only in relation to the current government and not about literature, the original theme of the interview — calls into question the usual definitions of the concept.
In other words, freedom of the press is what is also defined by information vehicles —through camouflaged censorship— and not just by the most widespread meanings.
Second, it is the omnipresence of the President of the Republic in all spheres of social life. In newspapers, TV, radio, books, comedy programs, events of all kinds and conversations between friends, he seems to monopolize attention and speeches.
Without us realizing it, its image and its decisions invade our lives. It seems that its questionable relevance —much more because of the position it holds— grows inversely proportional to the importance it actually has.
I felt a certain pretension by those responsible for the interview, especially the editor I don’t know, to consider that I would inevitably talk about the obvious. I dodge and dodge for the simple fact that I don’t want to take up every space in my life talking about someone I have no affinity with.
A ghost that stretches across the four corners of the country, hovering over all my actions, encounters and everything else within my reach. Afternoon we realize that life revolves around evil.
The same is true, for example, when I look at the political arena. It seems that there are not many propositions and alternatives to the caravan of destruction that crosses the country. The criticism, which is by the way, is necessary and must be amplified every day, but I would also like to hear and read about possible solutions for the immense crisis in which we are immersed.
Ciro Gomes, who has already been a proactive candidate in previous elections, decided to join the installed political mob and inflict abominable offenses whenever he has the opportunity. Ask anyone about a single proposal from the pre-candidate to get us out of the quagmire we are in, and your interlocutor will certainly have difficulty remembering.
However, the fact that we do not want the President of the Republic to occupy a central place in our lives does not mean that we should forget everything that his government has produced: the accelerated ecocide of our biomes and the communities that inhabit them, the tragedy of hunger that seemed be in the past and, above all, the crimes against humanity committed during the management of the coronavirus pandemic.
It has been very good to see the advance of vaccination and the adherence of Brazilians to the campaign. It’s also good to see people come back to life, the happening of encounters that have remained suspended for so long. But in this so longed-for feeling of well-being and security, if we are not vigilant, lies the danger of oblivion and impunity.
Wanting justice is not wanting revenge. While one is anchored in the civilizing patterns of a society, the other lacks reason and transgresses the collective social pact. Calling for justice in all public spaces is a duty we have to the victims. Only by honoring the memory of this tragedy can we prevent crimes like this from happening again.”
LINK PRESENT: Did you like this text? Subscriber can release five free hits of any link per day. Just click on the blue F below.
.
