Hi dear readers. Let's today go straight to factual points:
1) The Holiday Special Issue finally reached the points of sale in São Paulo (=Brazil) this week, i.e. two-three days ago. Yes, this is the Dec19-Jan1 issue.This is true for newsstands and big stores alike. Nobody had it and then all received it.
2) Despite the tardiness, a big store told me the next edition will come in only next Monday, 18. This is THE issue - the one that infuriated the president. How can you say that? Ok. I will take the question, answer it soon in another message, right? Now, back to facts. The first edition of 2016 - Dilma Rousseff on cover - confirming, is expected to reach the points of sale only on Jan 18.
3) the golden egg - The World in 2016 - is hard to find. Yes, after riding a lot (and failing to have time to post yesterday in result), I finally found it! Curious: I found it at a newsstand (street) not in a big store. None of the big stores has it. And we can say why: The World in 2016 was issued several weeks before the regular magazine showing Dilma Rousseff on the cover. It did not call the attention of the... the... censorship. By the way, did you know the big newspaper O Estado de S.Paulo, alias Estadão (because it is big) counts daily the days it is under censorship? Very easy to check this, reader: get any daily issue of the newspaper. Go to page A3 and, on the bottom of that page, find a tiny back square, lettering in white. It says exactly how many days till that day the newspaper in under censorship. Not a few: more than 2,200 today. Censorship is not my wording - it is written there. Said that, let's move on.
3A) To conclude from the previous item: we were saying why I found the special The World in 2016 at a street stand while no big store has it. The cover of that special passed - nothing seemed to be 'offensive' to the BBB - big Brazilian boss. When the issue showing BBB on cover came about...
simple: the release/distribution of the regular weekly edtions was halted and the expensive, exclusive (nothing of it available on the internet) The World in 2016 was withdrawn. Very easy to remove The World in 2016 from big stores, right? A phone call to the big boss of each big chain and it is done - all the branches of the big store hide the publication or return it -does not matter, the result is the same either way: it disappears and the public cannot even see it, let alone buy it. Those stands on the street, well, they got few of the special edition (4, 5 at most), naturally. They get more as they sell. Once those few were sold... no more was made available. Where the small businessperson did not sell all of it, you can find it.
4) So next Monday everyone will be able to buy Dilma's fall edition? It seems so. I know the title on cover is Brazil's fall, But all the elements (image, title and subtitle) suggest Dilma is going to fall.
All I could wish for after having done all this here denouncing the boycott is that the public would go crazy about getting that BBB Fall coming to the air so, so late. A huge, record sale - reflecting the impressive number of comments on line - 607 against around three hundred for the second most commented article in that edition - would mean a big revenge. And the publisher needs the money.
The argument that "it is absurd to boycott the print edition because it is on the internet" does not hold. Why are the print editions - when there are no boycotts - always right in time availabe, if there is always also the internet? It is because the print editions sell. I have heard from a university student today in a library, 'I saw some articles on the internet but I want to read more', referring to the Dilma's fall edition.
5) What about the subscribers? Here is a good reason to become one: the subscribers are one week ahead - they got Dilma's Fall edition this week. So go find a subscriber to borrow it from, if you can't wait to lay your hands on it till Monday.
6) Mari, we all are really dying to ask this, 'Why the BBB would boycott the magazine if the edition on her fall is going to be normally available in a few days from now? Good, very good question. This post is already long and thus I will, without beating about the bush, answer it in the following post, which I will write now and make available here tomorrow. Ok? Get back to get your answer!
bye-bye
ah! by the way, readers, the title in English of the long article in THE (=censored) edition we mention in the Jan 9 post has been misspelt. We have corrected it now: "Irredeemable?" A Portuguese version of it was published by Estadao (newspaper), as we said in that post, on Dec31, 2015, titled "Sem Salvação?"
