Neither Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva nor Jair Bolsonaro are available for discussion. This week they caused CNN to cancel the event scheduled for the channel’s 6th, which was not featured on (and will not see) GloboNews’ Central das Eleções. We should know that there is the same intention behind this positioning: try to control the narratives and live in the bubbles, speak only for the converts. The loser is the voter who has fallen blindly in a sea of misinformation..
A short survey based on checks published by verification initiatives in Brazil only this month of July, Lula said at least three false content and three exaggerated content. Bolsonaro was caught with at least nine false content and three exaggerated content.
Lula was wrong to comment on Petrobras’ profits, the demarcation of indigenous lands, the GDP over his years in government, the deforestation of the Amazon, the performance of Eletrobras, and the court TRF4 that unanimously convicted him in 2019. He gave false information about Bolsonaro. Several times in the Brazilian election campaign and talking about the debts of Petrobras, BNDES and the flaming capacity of the Amazon rainforest was wrong.
all this happened in events where they speak almost alone, away from the contradictions from the main election opponent. The result: The misguided data they emit is diluted. They are almost invisible to the population.
Discussions between presidential candidates are essential for the healthy electoral process. I wonder if it would be nice to pass legislation on the subject in the next (and always inevitable) electoral reform.
Debates are events where the time difference in the election calendar disappears. and where all candidates have the same degree of exposure. It turns out in these events who is the politician who has the most dominance on a particular issue and who has a well-defined government program for another. Verifiers for these events spend months structuring themselves, gathering information, building databases, and examining ways to reduce the impact of lies told live during peak audience hours. In these events, one of the healthiest information cycles is activated.
Debates serve as historical records possible government promises. This week, for example, we read that Bolsonaro has delivered 36% of what he said he would do if elected president in 2018. He participated in debates and hearings that year.
Finally, The debates still serve to get the voters to hear clear answers from the candidates on sensitive issues., past administrations, controversial allies, and even family and friends involved in scandals. From the game. A necessary game.
But despite all this, Lula and Bolsonaro prefer to pretend to be blind. They make near-nonsense request lists (some say they’ll only go if the journalist-interviewers are “friends”) and start playing the childish game of “I’ll go if she goes too”.
It is true that Brazil is suffering from political polarization and growing hatred, but it is worth remembering that this is not a special phenomenon here.
Donald Trump and Joe Biden were (and still are) toothsome rivals in the 2020 US presidential campaign. Despite this, they twice found themselves in front of a pool of seasoned journalists to answer live questions (the other is the republican candidate covid-19 framework).
Emmanuel Macron and Marine Le Pen did not refuse to meet face-to-face just days before the second round of this year’s elections in France. Like good adults, they sat down at the table and exposed themselves. The conversation caught fire, but it did.
By avoiding the so-called clash of ideas in a national chain, Lula and Bolsonaro set a bad example. They are incorrectly pointing to 2023, showing their followers that there is no possible meeting.. No matter who wins, Brazil will remain divided next year.
Cristina Tardáguila is program director at ICFJ and founder of Lupa.
source: Noticias
[author_name]
