Talk:Partido da Imprensa Golpista

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Brazil  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brazil, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brazil and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Internet culture  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Untitled[edit]

People from other countries, please be warned. This is a highly biased article. There is a CRITICISM paragraph at the end, but even this paragraph contains more argument to the paranoid idea of a coordinated action among press organs to fight the government. Brazil has a free press, free from spurious regulation, and want to go on this way. Even within a single newspaper one will find diversity of opinion, and this diversity frequently finds it´s way to the readers. PiG is a conspiracy theory created to fight back the (well documented) criticism to the Workers Party government. The article should show clearly both sides, and include references in a balanced manner, to give voice to both sides.

Brasilix (talk) 16:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)brasilix

People from other countries, please be warned. The fellow above is (very probably): a) a forsaken voter of the defeated presidential candidate José Serra or b) a troll from the Brazilian Wikipedia. As said by Pepe Escobar, correspondent of the "Asia Times", the Brazilian Presidential election in 2010 was "as ugly and nasty as the American mid-terms - complete with interference from millions of powerful evangelicals and even the Roman Catholic Church surreptitiously asking people not to vote for Dilma because she favors legalizing abortion (personally, she said she doesn't)",[1] not to mention the disinformation team on the Internet, assembled by José Serra's party, and led by a former Brazilian MTV VJ, Sonia Francine. It's Brazil, of course; you've been warned ;) - Al Lemos (talk) 23:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
One must add that the Brazilian press is largely oligopolystic. One single TV network (Rede Globo) commands more than two thirds of the average ratings, especially in prime time (this used to be much worse in the seventies and eighties. In some states nearly all newspapers are owned by a single group (Santa Catarina and São Paulo (state) for instance) and these coincide with strongholds of conservatism, whereas places with a more diverse press boast interesting alternatives (Rio de Janeiro, Rio Grande do Sul, Pará, Pernambuco). If the PiG does not actually exist, the media organisations supposedly integrating it do exhibit some convergences and boast a power that would allow them to do exactly what the proponents of the PiG concept claim they do. jggouvea (talk) 00:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Good point. This article also needs a section analyzing the alternatives for a Brazilian version of the Argentinian Law on Audiovisual Media. - Al Lemos (talk) 23:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

References[edit]

  1. ^ Pepe Escobar (2010-11-03). Asia Times Online, ed. "The day Obama dreamed of being Lula". Retrieved 2010-11-04. 


I will let readers judge by themselves. Some people believe press shall be neutral, and an encyclopedia not. Strange days we live. Brasilix (talk) 00:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)Brasilix

Single purpose account "Liberdadedeexpressao"[edit]

Liberdadedeexpressao (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (talk) 02:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC) If the PiG does not actually exist, as you say .... it should not be at the Wikipedia, that is supposed to be an encyclopaedia not a forum for political debate. If the idea is to explain the oligopolistic nature of the Brazilian media, an entry should be created for “Brazilian media” and some data could be exposed there on the level of concentration, which are the big groups, and so forth — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liberdadedeexpressao (talkcontribs) 02:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey, "Liberdade": where are your sources? The term is used by some left-wing bloggers but ignored by many others (left-wing bloggers). Who ignores? If the term is used by leftist bloggers, who are the many others (left-wing bloggers) that ignore it? Do you can cite one (in 2012, of course ;) ? - Al Lemos (talk) 22:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
95% of brazilians don't know what is "Partido da Imprensa Golpista". This is used only by a few comunists in Brazil. Al Lemos is one of them, and he acts like the "article owner", nobody can edit here without his comunist permission. 189.106.187.2 (talk) 16:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Hey, "Liberdade without freedom", behave yourself and come back to talk! Act civilized - not like a mean sock-puppeteer. Oh, and I'm a "commie"? Or a "pinko"? You (and your legion) deserves only my contempt ;)- Al Lemos (talk) 22:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not the author of this last comment.--Liberdadedeexpressao (talk) 19:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, no. You are a (can I say that?)... real democrat ;) - Al Lemos (talk) 01:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Original research issues[edit]

As most of us know, Wikipedia is only supposed to report facts which are verifiable in reliable sources; one of our core policies is no original research. This article seems currently to risk violating that. This is clearly a controversial concept, therefore it's particularly important that everything in the page is supported by reliable sources - and that the article doesn't advance arguments which aren't found in the original sources. The article currently seems to go beyond that, by trying to list every group and individual allegedly connected with this conspiracy and identify links between them. That's clearly original research, by definition.

I'm not a Portuguese reader, so I'm not going to try to clean this one up, but I hope another editor will do so. In the meantime, I have added the {{originalresearch}} template to the article, and removed a section alleging that Portuguese Wikipedia is part of this conspiracy, as that was a particularly blatant violation of WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Robofish (talk) 15:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I removed your biased mark. The article have strong sources and it isn't a "conspiracy theory", but a well documented exposition about a Brazilian media controversial issue. I agree (under protest) with the removal of the section about Portuguese Wikipedia, but you can't contradict the facts (all what was there has sources - good sources). It's not a good idea to start a edit war.- Al Lemos (talk) 01:56, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Protection[edit]

I've just protected this page for three days due to the ongoing edit warring. Please discuss the issue here instead of continually reverting. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm trying to edit the article and make it fair, removing original research and texts with non-reliable sources, made by Al Lemos, and include topics and sections that Al Lemos purposely did not put into the article. And he comes here and simply undoes all my edits. I think it's more a matter of preventing Al Lemos editing this article or block him from Wikipedia, since he thinks he owns this place, like a personal blog. 17:16, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
This article was blocked for 3 days and the user Al Lemos simply ignored this talk page. I therefore believe that my version is completely valid, since he even tried to argue. I want to warn you, however, something very serious: Al Lemos fled to Portuguese Wikipedia, began to create the same partial articles he created here, and he still calling an administrator of Wiki PT to chase me, look this: https://pt.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Usu%C3%A1rio_Discuss%C3%A3o:Lord_Mota&diff=prev&oldid=37200825. And in his words, I'm doing cyberbullying and harassment... He is so angry with me, that is trying to block me anyway, by cross-wiki harassment. I pray earnestly that user need to be blocked in all Wikipedias, by cross-wiki vandalism. This is totally unacceptable. Rauzaruku (talk) 01:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

What is this article about...[edit]

@Rauzaruku: First it says its about an alleged view of Lula present in the media, and then it accuses the Foro de São Paulo of being a terrorist organization, and then, it writes about "Left-wing censorship". What is this about, is it a pro-Lula term or anti-Lula term, it seems to contain a lot of anti-socialist rhetoric, but from the lead, it seems that its a term used by leftist describe negative portrayal of Lula in the media.. --TIAYN (talk) 18:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Removed text (cleanup)[edit]

Off-topic for this article, per WP:COATRACK. I've moved some section to articles Censorship in Brazil and Concentration of media ownership, but below is a rambling mess that doesn't seem to belong anywhere else. Baffle gab1978 (talk) (timestamp below)

Left-wing censorship in Latin America, and leftist propaganda[edit]

Although the Paulo Henrique Amorim theory (and left-people that supports the idea of ​​"Partido da Imprensa Golpista") spread that the press wants to control the people, the attitudes of the left, in retaliation for the alleged authoritarianism of the right, is another authoritarianism: as leftist governments achieve power in Latin America, there is a growing state censorship and even killings of journalists, setting a real threat to freedom of expression and in Latin America.[1] "Partido da Imprensa Golpista" can be considered a type of Bolivarian Propaganda to make people hate the left oppositors.

Threats of rulers of the region to the media staged debates of the 69th General Assembly of the SIP held until Tuesday in Denver, in the United States . "The Latin American governments have dedicated themselves to sow hatred and fear - said IAPA president Jaime Mantilla, by presenting a study of the restrictions on the press in Latin America." Mantilla directs the "Diario Hoy", of Ecuador, which in June approved a controversial law regulating the media just branded by media organizations and human rights activists of "gag law" . The initiative allows the government to monitor the publication of news and punish media.[1]

- This is a direct government interference in news content, as he decides who can practice the profession and who can own a medium - denounced Solines Juan Carlos, former president of the National Council of Telecommunications of Ecuador .[1]

One of the most controversial reports is on Venezuela, where journalists highlighted an increase in the number of lawsuits against anti-government media Chavista . A week ago, President Nicolás Maduro created a state agency to control the publication of news . He already had encouraged before the punishment of journalists and media that addressed the shortage of products, recurring problem in Venezuela . Reporters also criticized the sales channel Globovision, one of the few remaining critical of the government, businessmen linked to Chavez .[1]

- There is a demolition plan to sustain democracies messianic leaders who want to perpetuate themselves in power - warned Claudio Paolillo, President of the Committee on Freedom of the Press and Information of the SIP and magazine journalist Uruguayan " Advanced " .[1]

According to the BBC, US politicians have said TeleSUR is a propaganda tool for Chávez.[2][3] Villa del Cine, a state-owned film and television studio started in 2006, has also been criticized as a "propaganda factory", according to Nichols and Morse[4] and independent film makers.[5] Chávez said that Villa del Cine would help break the "dictatorship of Hollywood".[5]

The Chávez government has been accused by Human Rights Watch of abusing its control over broadcasting frequencies, where they can punish radio and television stations that are thought to broadcast anti-Chavista programming.[6] A new media law promotes self-censorship within most of the opposition media. Through the use of propaganda, Chavez has continually verbalized his successes on television which has resulted in a large popular base of support.[7]

According to Michael Kraft, writing in the Charlotte Conservative, Bolivarian propaganda has been disseminated in Venezuela and abroad.[8][9] The state is in charge of all public television stations and public radio stations, including Radio Nacional de Venezuela the only radio station with full national coverage.[8] According to the Associated Press, opposition candidate María Corina Machado "complained about what she called a government-orchestrated propaganda machine that churns out spots ridiculing Chavez's critics, runs talk shows dominated by ruling party hopefuls and picks up all of the president's speeches".[10]

In 1999, Chávez began to promote his revolution through print media, mostly in local newspapers like Barreto’s Correo del Presidente, focusing the messages on the transformation of Venezuela into a first world nation within ten years.[11] He used cadenas (obligatory televised transmission, often taking over regular programming for hours) that became an effective weapon to fight criticism by running continuously to all audiences both in urban and rural sections of Venezuela.[citation needed] In 2001, he transformed Aló Presidente from a radio show to a full-fledged live, unscripted, television show running all hours of the day promoting the Bolivarian Revolution, blaming the Venezuelan economic problems on its northern neighbor, the United States as a "mass-market soapbox for the policies and musings" of Chávez, who the Boston Globe described as "a media savvy, forward-thinking propagandist [who] has the oil wealth to influence public opinion".[12] The show airs every Sunday, depicts Chavez (wearing red, the color of the revolution) as the charismatic leader, passionate about the well being of his country.[8] Many Venezuelan's tune in because Mr. Chavez is known for unveiling new financial assistance packages every weekend.[13] Since 1999, President Chavez has spent an average 40 hours a week on television promoting his "Bolivarian Revolution".[14]

In 2005, the new Law of Social Responsibility modified the penal code to simplify ways people could sue for opinions emitted against them, resulting in limits on political talk shows and self-censorship of the press (Law of Social Responsibility 2005).[15] Privately owned RCTV was closed in 2007 when thee administration did not renew their broadcasting license.[16] Globovisión, the last television channel to avoid government criticism, faced a $2.1 million fine on October 2011 for an alleged violation of the broadcasting statute.[6] As of 2012, the state controls the majority of media sources within the country, inundating audiences with pro-Chávez, pro-"Bolivarian Revolutionary" ideals throughout the urban and rural areas.[8] Pro-Chávista ideals infiltrate radio stations, local and cable television channels, newspapers, the internet, and public buildings (with murals).

Bolivarian propaganda uses emotional arguments to gain attention, exploit the fears (either real or imagined) of the population, create external enemies for scapegoat purposes, and produce nationalism within the population, causing feelings of betrayal for support of the opposition.[17] The images and messages promote ideological mobilization,[18] including Chávez as a "liberator", the positive effects of the Bolivarian Revolution (including social reforms), and power deriving from the people.[19] The overall goal of the Bolivarian propaganda machine is to reflect society's wants and goals for an improved Venezuela.[18]

The Bolivarian Revolution is advertised through all outlets: TV, radio, Internet (with websites like the Venezuelan Solidarity Campaign), magazines (like Viva Venezuela), newspapers, murals, billboards, memorabilia (action figures, t-shirts, posters), schools (through the lesson plans and books),[20] movies, symphonies (Orquesta Sinfónica Simón Bolívar), festivals, and public service vehicles (like buses and ambulances).[19] The face of Chávez is everywhere, portraying similarities to Simón Bolívar; the typical images that accompany the pro-socialist messages are the Bolshevik red star, Che Guevara portraits, Simón Bolívar portraits, red barrettes, Venezuelan flags, evil Uncle Sam, Uncle Sam as a snake, and Chávez with the superman logo.[19]

Foro de São Paulo connections[edit]

Foro de São Paulo (FSP; English: São Paulo Forum) is a conference of leftist political parties and other organizations from Latin America and the Caribbean.

During the early 1990s, the FSP was seem as expressing the emergence of a new Latin American leftist paradigm: non- authoritarian, de-militarized and grassroots-friendly.[21] However, there is a marked contradiction between the fiery and quasi-revolutionary rhetoric about "socialism of the 21st Century" indulged in sometimes by many FSP's leaders, and the plain fact that the positions of power held by such leaders depend, on most cases, on their holding positions in governments which have emerged through the electoral road.[22] In a statement made in 2008 in Lima, before a gathering of Peruvian businessmen, however, Brazil's President Lula would declare, approvingly, that the FSP had "educated" the Left in the understanding of the existence of possibilities of running for elections and gaining power through the democratic way - - a declaration that prompted a comment from AFP, reproduced at the Rede Globo site, to the effect that the hallmark of FSP's activities had been its "very moderate" character.[23]

Foro de São Paulo concluded its 16th meeting held in 2010 in Buenos Aires, celebrating initiatives of governments in the region to try to increase state control of the media industry . According to the resolution adopted by the group, the media law passed in Argentina in 2009 - down by the courts in 2010 - must be a " key reference " to other countries . In addition to sharing the awards equally between the state, social movements and the private sector, the law requires the Argentinean Grupo Clarin, the country's largest - to unravel broadcasting licenses for TV and radio . The standard contributes to the " plurality and diversity of voices ," according to the Forum, and shows that the state should have a starring role in the political sector and needs to " put limits on media concentration ." The Forum also highlighted that social sectors in Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay could raise doubts about the " credibility of the mass media " and that this resulted in lower sales levels and hearing in the case of newspapers and TV . Reiterating its full support to the Cuban Revolution, the group also " denounced a fierce media campaign " against the Caribbean country that tries to provoke discrediting the authorities of the regime led by Raúl Castro . Based in São Paulo, in 1990, by President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and the then government leader Fidel Castro, the Forum could articulate left the continent . Together, the parties have become a front of opposition to the neoliberal wave established in the last decade . Today, the parties in the governing Foro 11 Latin American countries and have different proposals for economic and political model . While some want to deploy the socialist model similar to Cuba, others advocate more egalitarian regimes, but without the extinction of the market. During the meeting held in Argentina, the executive secretary of the Forum and PT leader, Valter Pomar, read a letter sent by President Lula to event participants . Besides celebrating the advances from the left on the continent, Lula criticized the " right was pedestrian control of power by popular will ." In the final declaration, the Forum noted that " demonstrates satisfaction " to see the PT candidate for president, Dilma Rousseff leading in the polls on voting intentions .[24]

Manifesto "For democracy and press freedom"[edit]

Bicudo declared his vote in the conservative candidate José Serra at the Brazilian presidential election, 2010, and said that the victory of Dilma Rousseff would endanger the Brazilian democracy.[25]

On September 22, 2010, in an act in front of the law school of the University of São Paulo (USP), lawyers, artists and intellectuals launched a document that claimed to be "a manifesto in defense of democracy and freedom of the press and expression" . was attended by former minister of the Brazilian Supreme Court Carlos Veloso, and lawyers as Hélio Bicudo and Miguel Reale Jr., former minister of the ex-president Fernando Henrique Cardoso.[26][27]

Hélio Bicudo was vice-mayor of São Paulo in the Marta Suplicy's administration, having been away from the Workers Party in 2005.[28] It was he who read, in the microphone, the text of the manifesto, which talked about the risks of authoritarianism :

There was also criticism of the actions of groups accused of acting against the press :

Former Justice Minister Miguel Reale Júnior said that journalists are being threatened :

In his opinion, the act would happen on September 23, 2010, sponsored by labor unions and the PT (acts to criticise the press), is " a process of radicalization immensely dangerous." Reale Júnior said :

Bicudo also said that President Lula is a "full time President" and criticized him forusing the Presidency secutiry on rallies: :

The PSDB candidate for president, José Serra, said on September 22, 2010, in an interview, that there is in the country today " blackmail on the Brazilian press". According to him, the freedom of the press "is the condition for the existence of democracy".[26][27]

The response for this document was the "Manifesto Filósofos Pró-Dilma" ("Scholars Supporting Dilma Rousseff for President"), of October 6, 2010.[29] The document criticizes the surrender of José Serra, a moderate politician, to the impositions of the conservative coalition that gave him support, particularly with regard to the smear campaign against the religious belief (or lack thereof) of the opposing candidate and her position on the abortion question as a public health issue.[30] Serra was also criticized for having pledged to maintain and expand one of the major social programs of Lula, the "Bolsa Familia" - after having spent several years denouncing it as mere "handouts to the poor:"[29]

Globo and the Brazilian Military dictatorship[edit]

On August 31, 2013, the newspaper "O Globo" published an editorial that recognized for the first time its support to the 1964 coup d'état that overthrew elected President João Goulart and established a military dictatorship that lasted until 1985.[31] The editorial came out about two months after the violent protests in all of Brazil, initially seen only as against the government (at all levels - municipal, regional, and federal), but which eventually reach the very Rede Globo, historically criticized for its explicit support of the military dictatorship.[32] The editorial caused little or no impact on other organs of the Brazilian mass media (some of them also identified in the editorial as supporters of the generals' regime).[32][33][34] For example, the Rede Record, Rede Globo's main competitor, whose current owners has no links with the dictatorial period, merely reproduced the editorial in your site R7, without comments.[32]

However, in the year in which the military movement completed two decades in Brazil, in 1984, Roberto Marinho, O GLOBO owner, published an editorial signed on the first page . In it to justify their adherence to the military in 1964, made ​​clear his belief that intervention was essential to the maintenance of democracy and then to contain the outbreak of urban warfare . And also revealed that the ratio of editorial support to the regime, though lasting, was not simple all the time . In his words : " We have remained faithful to their objectives (of the revolution) , although conflicting on several occasions with those who wished to take ownership of the revolutionary process , forgetting that the events began , as recognized by Marshal Costa e Silva , ' inescapable requirement for the Brazilian people . " Without people, there would be no revolution, but merely a ' statement ' or ' blow ', with which we would not be supportive . " O GLOBO demanded Getúlio Vargas one constituent institutionalize the Revolution of 30, was against the Estado Novo, supported the 1946 Constitution and advocated the possession of John F. Kennedy in 1955 , when it was challenged by civilian and military sectors .[31]

During the dictatorship in 1964 , he has always positioned himself against the persecution of left journalists, harboring many in the newspaper office. There are many testimonials that account he made ​​sure to keep O GLOBO employees called to testify : accompanying them personally to prevent disappeared. Sometimes asked to give a list of "communists" who worked in the newspaper, but always denied it.[31]

Marinho said a famous phrase to General Juracy Magalhães, Justice Minister of Castello Branco : "Take care of your communist, I take care of mine." In the twenty years during which the dictatorship lasted, O GLOBO, even without withdrawing support to the military, always demanded the restoration of them in the shortest time possible, democratic normalcy .[31]

References
  1. ^ a b c d e "State censorship and death threaten the freedom of journalists in Latin America". O Globo. October 21, 2013. Retrieved October 24, 2013. 
  2. ^ "Chavez bid to counter Hollywood". BBC News. June 4, 2006. Retrieved April 26, 2012. 
  3. ^ Sreeharsha, Vinod (November 22, 2005). "Telesur tested by Chávez video". Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved April 26, 2012. These clips bolster critics who claim the network is and will be a propaganda tool for Chávez. 
  4. ^ Nichols and Morse (2010), p. 326.
  5. ^ a b Ingham, James (November 1, 2007). "Venezuelan cinema, Chávez style". BBC News. Retrieved April 26, 2012. 
  6. ^ a b "World Report 2012: Venezuela". The Human Rights Watch. Retrieved 14 April 2012. 
  7. ^ Manwaring (2005), p. 12.
  8. ^ a b c d [unreliable source?] Kraft, Michael (24 July 2007). "Chavez Propaganda Machine". Charlotte Conservative. Retrieved 10 March 2012. 
  9. ^ Bogardus, Kevin (September 22, 2004). "Venezuela Head Polishes Image With Oil Dollars: President Hugo Chavez takes his case to America's streets". Center for Public Integrity. Retrieved April 26, 2012. 
  10. ^ Toothaker, Christopher (September 19, 2010). "Chavez foes face obstacles ahead of crucial vote". The Seattle Times (Associated Press). Retrieved April 26, 2012. 
  11. ^ McCaughan (2005), p. 98.
  12. ^ Lakshmanan, Indira (27 July 2005). "Channeling his energies Venezuelans riveted by president's TV show". The Boston Globe. Retrieved 14 April 2012. 
  13. ^ McCaughan (2005), p. 196.
  14. ^ Schoen (2009), p. 154.
  15. ^ McCaughan (2005), p. 95.
  16. ^ Carroll, Rory (23 May 2007). "Chavez silences critical TV station - and robs the people of their soaps". The Guardian. Retrieved 10 March 2012. 
  17. ^ Manwaring (2005), p. 11.
  18. ^ a b Turner (2007), p. 14.
  19. ^ a b c Moloney, Anastasia (29 January 2007). "Photo Feature: Chavez's Propaganda". World Politics Review. Retrieved 10 March 2012. 
  20. ^ Manwaring (2005), p. 10.
  21. ^ See, for instance, William I. Robinson,"The São Paulo Forum: is there a new Latin American left?", Monthly Review, December 1992, available at [1]
  22. ^ cf. Inés Hayes, "XIV São Paulo Forum: Left parties debate the current historic conjuncture", available at [2]
  23. ^ [3]
  24. ^ Reinaldo Azevedo (2010-08-21). "Under command of PT, Sao Paulo Forum celebrates press censorship". Veja (magazine) (in Portuguese). Editora Abril.  (Portuguese)
  25. ^ Bob Fernandes (2010-10-20). ""Se Dilma vencer, democracia estará em risco", diz Bicudo". Terra Magazine (in Portuguese). 
  26. ^ a b c d e f g "Launched in SP manifesto for democracy". G1 (in Portuguese). 2010-09-22. 
  27. ^ a b c d e f g "Manifesto in defense of democracy and press freedom is launched in São Paulo". O Globo (in Portuguese). 2010-09-22. 
  28. ^ Josias de Souza (2010-09-26). "Hélio Bicudo: ‘País pode caminhar para ditadura civil’". Folha de S. Paulo (in Portuguese). 
  29. ^ a b c "International Scholars Support Dilma Rousseff for the Presidency of Brazil". Retrieved 2011-11-02. 
  30. ^ Pepe Escobar (November 3, 2010). Asia Times, ed. "The day Obama dreamed of being Lula". Retrieved April 14, 2012. 
  31. ^ a b c d e f O Globo, ed. (2013-08-31). "Apoio editorial ao golpe de 64 foi um erro" (in Portuguese). Retrieved 2013-09-22. 
  32. ^ a b c Janet Tappin Coelho (2013-09-02). The Independent, ed. "Globo media organisation apologises for supporting Brazil’s dictatorship". Retrieved 2013-09-22. 
  33. ^ Roy Greenslade (2013-09-09). The Guardian, ed. "Brazilian media group apologises for supporting military dictatorship". Retrieved 2013-09-22. 
  34. ^ Suzana Singer (2013-09-09). Folha de S. Paulo, ed. "Ghosts from the Past". Retrieved 2013-09-22. 

Baffle gab1978 (talk) 21:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)