First, our article denouncing the boycott clearly says the president Dilma Rousseff - on the cover of the first edition of the year - ordered it. Second, the ones posing the questions are not in the habit of reading, did not read our article but take themselves as very smart - they condemn rumours upfront while, instead of reading, they ask questions to people passing on the story. What kind of questions?
Come across with the preconceptuals
Their questions can be said to be rhetorical in the first place (they are not really looking for information); whichever answer those inquisitors get, they will doubt it. They make up their mind as soon as they hear any story for, rather than analysing, they judge based on preconceptions.
Teatime is better with analyticals
The analytical ones reacted to our report differently: "This [the boycott] is very serious" was a common response among those in this group. They did not ask those rhetoric questions, and opened themselves to hear more.
Be gentle to the lost
Between the two groups there is a number of people - I would like to get to know if they are larger in number than the 'preconceptuals'. Those people look for information for they really value it, but are similar to the preconceptuals in that they fail to be analytical. They read the mainstream only and the easiest mark in order to recognize one in this group are the stories they tell you - they are skilled reproducers of what is in the most endorsed magazines and newspapers. When confronted with our report of the boycott, they responded, "I did not get to know about that"... And that is all. They do not know what else to say, how to address the new that can be legitimate, but... is not in the mainstream. They lose their ground. They ask for details to read more, but do not expect any substancial follow up, since, remember, they do miss the analytical skills.
Stories such as The Economist prohibited in Brazil, in this blog, come out thanks to the analyticals. You must be able to see the too narrow road of truth and track it by getting witnesses to talk, by putting together the 360 degree-big-picture. You do not get "facts" with the whole story right in your hands. Tracking that road means you must get to the facts by analysing, and analysing.
Well, you now realize how 'dangerous' these analyticals are. That's precisely why journalism has 'forgotten' such fundamental lesson: a most relevant, robust story demands analytical minds. The stress has turned to 'facts', which can be regarded as one more boycott on the truth. We should all remember this when reading anything, specially the mainstream.
Where do you stand? Answer regarding you and your partners to find out why you keep on with useless fights
among the preconceptuals
rhetorical questions; interruptions indicate failure to listen; questions and comments never get to the core of the story, keeping deviating from it
among the analyticals
promptly get to the core of the story. Listen. Say something else, relevant and coherent. (wish I could count on a few of them for tea - they are rare)
among the lost
appear 'neutral'; never take a stance. Boring for just reproducing the news (good if you realize you can listen to what is in the papers instead of reading them or watching the news)
This is ours. Straight put, we came to this typology by ourselves and are not aware of any other similar to this. As the text itself indicates, we came to this typology by analysing the responses we got from our stoty The Economist prohibited in Brazil, also, of course, enlightened by previous similar exercises on analysing behaviour. We could point out more about the types; here we have presented just a few features of each - but it seems to be enough to say who is who, if one can face the truth...
Jan 09 - the boycott is denounced
RELATED
