Malu Gaspar, from O Globo, published the two most relevant journalistic “scoops” of the twilight of 2025.
First, the content of the contract between the office of Viviane Barci, wife of , with . Then, the minister’s telephone contacts with the BC dedicated to the Master crisis.
What would be a journalistic investigation, in less abnormal times, became an unforgivable conspiracy, in the eyes of the PT hate office. The episode prompts a brief lesson on professional press sources.
Source is any holder of hidden information of public interest. Democratic legislation protects the confidentiality of the source, without which there is no real journalism. In most cases, the information revealed affects the interests of powerful figures and, therefore, the source will only speak if they are guaranteed anonymity.
Who would show their face to denounce the police officer who is dedicated to blackmail or the head of drug trafficking in the community?
The capos of the militancy that attacks Malu demand “proof” — that is, the identity of their sources. There are two serious errors there. They pretend to ignore that journalism does not provide evidence, a concept belonging to the judicial system, but disseminates information. At the same time, they demonstrate their contempt for democracy: they are regimes of force that demand the exposure of sources in order to silence society.
Sources speak for different reasons: civic indignation, interest in incinerating the image of a relevant character, mere desire for revenge. Scammers sometimes function as sources. The journalist may or may not know the motivations of his sources — but that doesn’t matter.
What matters are the answers to two simple questions: 1) is it true?; 2) is it in the public interest? If the answers are “yes” and “yes”, the journalist has a duty to publish.
Sources can lie. Malu, years ago: “You have to know how to take advantage and not submit to the game of interests of the sources. It’s nice to be there always alert, trying to discover where the truth is and where they are trying to deceive you.” The journalist lives by credibility: allowing himself to be manipulated by a source and publishing incorrect information undermines his only treasure.
It is Malu’s detractors who would need to highlight the hypothetical falsity of his “scoops” — but they don’t even try to do that.
Capos organize their bombardment around their own answers to the question “who do they serve?” According to them, the information would serve Bolsonarism’s war against Moraes. They are mistaken: the exposure of possible ethical deviations or influence peddling in the STF serves to punish distortions, improving the institution, something negative for the coup.
However, in the end, their question is foreign to the world of the professional press. The activist journalist only publishes what he believes serves the interests of his own. A real journalist publishes what is of public interest, leaving citizens the possibility of drawing political conclusions. Malu is from the second family.
Malu’s defamers are, explicitly, political activists. But, paradoxically, they direct the gratuitous accusation at the journalist that she was operating according to political designs. It’s the same as what Bolsonarist networks do, just with the sign inverted. Shared purpose: to discredit the press to protect their idols.
LINK PRESENT: Did you like this text? Subscribers can access seven free accesses from any link per day. Just click the blue F below.
