But those signs were not what made us publish about the ban, of course. The unusual lateness was something, but to call it a ban we draw on a strong, reliable testimony. We have already published in this blog that testimony, which we reproduce here again:
- The Economist has been blocked ("barrada"). They told me to hide this here (showing me the display with the name of the magazine)
- What you are saying...
- It's all there in the customs. Nothing arrived here [at the point of sales]. They have already done this before, when Brazil was depicted on the edge of a cliff (referring to the cover of this other blocked edition).
- I remember, yes, this edition.
- So, then they also halt the magazine, kept holding it until they finally released it!
- jesus... (almost whispering) They - who are they?
The person does not answer promptly now. Seems to be distant, thinking. After a while says:
- Censhorship. the word is censorship.
Then looks at me in the eye and says,
- Need to drink some water.
It would be legitimate to argue that good journalism would demand further check, such as going to custom warehouses, get documents (certainly secret). All this is costly, impossible to accomplish and... extremely dangerous if you are in Brazil. There was once again a record number of journalists killed in 2015.
Taking all into account, there was no reason, better, no justification for a serious journalist to put it in stand-by and remain silent; that testimony (above) plus the elements of the edition about Brazil (cover, etc.) plus the outlandish fact that no recent edition of The Economist could be found plus the fact there was no other strong evidence to make us be in doubt about the reason for the lateness plus the fact there are records of previous overreactions by the very president against the magazine plus the fact that the president has been formally accused of hiding nothing less than the real deficit in public accounts.
Indeed. In view of all these 'plusses', we cannot reasonably say there are only rumors.
Since our first "The Economist prohibited in 'democratic' Brazil", we have daily updated our readears and, unfortunately, yes, unfortunately, the story has grown more and more robust. There are now three editions of The Economist late - the one showing Dilma on cover, and the two that follow. In other words, still today, Jan 19, the edition of The Economist the public is awaiting to hit next the points of sale is exactly that with Dilma Rousseff on cover, her name followed by 'the disastrous year ahead' (emphasis ours).
Have you noticed 'the' instead of 'a'? (a disastrous year ahead carries a different connotation) By choosing 'the', the magazine indicates - for those with a further eye to see - that Dilma, just beginning the second year of her second mandate, will not go beyond the year ahead, 2016.
Elsewhere (previous posts) we have pointed out how the magazine further makes its opinion known by using that subtle strategy in the Brazil's fall edition. Our main objective here is to discuss the ban on the magazine.
'I am almost sure that edition will not come in anymore. They are going to send only the two latest to put an end to the gap', told me a newsstand owner this morning.
Rumors? We really had, and sill have, a point here. An alarming one. I decided not to call it censorship; I have known censorship as an overt prohibition on the circulation of ideas. A secret ban is corruption, Olympic corruption, because it is at the onset conceived to remain impossible to 'prove'.
But isn't it proven now?
Ones that before all this still ask for more evidence are not genuinely fighting for freedom. They are helping to make the cover-up 'normal', and thus inviting more of the kind in future.
There is a specially illuminated dialog in the movie Spolight, that between the judge and Ruffallo's character (the one member of the Spotlight team who gets the documents in the Court). The dialog is close to this:
- (the judge) These are sensitive documents. What is your editorial responsibility in publishing them?
- What is my editorial responsibility in not publishing them? (the journalist)
By saying this, he finally gets public documents that, despite, were not available at the court register.
What made us denounce the boycott is based on the very same rationale and principle: how could we go on evoking freedom and justice after not saying anything we have come to find out about such a serious episode?
Today, dear readers, we regret updating you by confirming the tumor. Brazil is dying, its democracy, fraudulent.
Brazilians heckle the president at a São Paulo event on Wednesday. PHOTO: SEBASTIÃO MOREIRA/EUROPEAN PRESSPHOTO AGENCY
image from the Wall Street JournalAs a further endorsement to vast evidence Dilma Rousseff is no longer in control of the country, she embarks on ego and power defense by stupidly attacking a prestigious publication as though an untraceable, wicked ban could restore power to her as magically as the prince's kiss awakes the beauty.
Maybe Dilma Rousseff's hypocritical, if not also delirious, response becomes the last straw that will make the sleeping giant country admit it is broken in its very spine.
Despite our being so ashamed of the boycott that harms freedom and seriously affect the financial health of the magazine (also bringing losses to local businesses in time of intractable economic downturn), apologies must come from somebody else: who has ordered the ban. Our work of denouncing the boycott done, we are gladly able to congratulate The Economist on finding, once again, a creative, bold way to express its opinion, this time saying Dilma Rousseff must - without delay - fall by the force of the people, not by the "misguided" (Brazil's fall article), unbearably long process of impeachment. Brilliantly, the magazine says it without saying, no matter the boycott.--
Our first (Jan 9) article The Economist prohibited in 'democratic' Brazil is here.
Closely related to this latest update is The movie Spotlight and The Economist case in Brazil
To know how the boycott affects business (the magazine and local sellers) and is (so easily) put in place, read The Economist boycotted in Brazil - deepening the investigation
RELATED
A BRAZILIAN NEWSPAPER UNDER CENSORSHIP FOR AGES NOW
