Brazil - A Country Analysis

Today let us talk about South America’s largest nation- Brazil. We are going to discuss some questions, such as – How is social media influencing Brazil? What is the status of Brazilian journalists? What problems is Brazil facing at the moment? And perhaps, what’s going to be Brazil’s future?

Looking back in the history, Freedom of Speech in Brazil was most restricted during the military regime in 1967, when Article 151 was added to the constitution, limiting citizen’s liberty. It was until when Brazil became democratic and all this came to an end. It is a democratic country and has been democratic ever since 1985. There are three types of governments – Presidential, Federal Judiciary and Congress. Since the end of military rule in 1985, unionization, collective bargaining, and frequent strikes have become commonplace among federal employees in all the three branches of government.The current president of Brazil is Dilma Rousseff.

Investigating journalism in Brazil, we can see how it is facing crisis at the moment. This is because of two main reasons – one being the growing competition with new technologies and internet, which means how Brazilians have started believing online comments and broadcasted news. The second reason being, economic pressures to cut costs and do more with less of journalists and other costly reporting.

According to the World Press Freedom Index, Brazil is a country which exposes journalists to physical danger. In 2013, there were five journalists murdered and this made Brazil one of the deadliest countries for media personnel in western hemisphere. Now, due to all these cases journalists find it risky to cover subjects like – corruption, drugs and illegal trafficking.

A major problem faced by Brazil this year was when Brazilians in São Paulo protested against the massive amount of money spent on 2014 Football World Cup and 2016 Olympics. They said that all that money could have been used in hospitals and education. Another thing which was quite astonishing was when state military police was still using the methods it used during the time of dictatorship. Around 100 journalists were victims of violence and two-third of the blame went on the police.

Looking at these scores stated by the Freedom House this year, we can say that Brazil is neither the best nor the worst in context with press freedom.

Moving on to media, Brazil has South America's largest media market – thousands of broadcasting radios, TV channels and a strong press. Social media has influenced Brazilians in many ways like in purchase decisions, brands interacting directly with social networks and job recruitment.

Now let’s go to the vital part – Future of Brazil. Due to the growth of social media, people have started doubting what is being told to them by politicians and journalists. 

Instead , they have started drifting towards other sources like – online broadcasted news, posted comments by people on face book, articles and even blogs. They find it trustworthy, and unbiased. Old newspapers have now taken a backseat.

Journalism in Brazil won’t improve if media reforms are not taken seriously and discussed in a mature manner.This cannot be achieved by journalists’ good intentions and individual commitment alone.It is important to recognize that more structural and long lasting improvements in the media will necessarily depend upon- deepening of the Democratization Project and  Economic force. 

After reading all this the questions that come to our mind are-How will the media industry protect their institution? How will they retain positive public perception of their journalistic integrity and regain the trust of their readers?

(Can also refer to Power point presentation on this topic)

  

Should Scotland Be An Independent Country

There was just one question – should Scotland be an independent country? The answer was as simple as a yes or a no, but it decided the future of the UK.  September the 18^th of this year was an important date, on this day the final decision according to the votes came out to be a no.

Let us first have a look at the reason behind Scotland wanting independence. The proponents of the Yes Campaign believed that Scotland would be richer if it separates from England. They wanted Scotland to make its own decisions about how resources are controlled and money is invested. They opposed investing billions of pounds in nuclear weapons and wanted to focus on social issues such as; childcare and programs to retain talent and encourage young Scots to stay.

Investigating the opposition and throwing some light on the Better Together Campaign we get to know about the arguments it placed against the yes campaign. They said that by being a part of the UK, Scotland can easily trade across other parts of the UK and therefore have access to more jobs. It also mentioned that Scotland has the protection of the UK armed forces and influence on the UN Security Council.

Shortly afterwards, Mr Salmond said he accepted the defeat and called for National Unity. He told supporters: “The unionist parties made vows late in the campaign to devolve more powers to Scotland. Scotland will expect these to be honoured in rapid course – as a reminder; we have been promised a second reading of a Scotland Bill by March 27th next year.” Mr Salmond urged the Yes voters to reflect on how far they had come."I don't think any of us, whenever we entered politics, would have thought such a thing to be either credible or possible", he said. He also claimed the campaign had put "a scare and a fear of enormous proportions" at the heart of the Westminster establishment."Today of all days as we bring Scotland together, let us not dwell on the distance we have fallen short, let us dwell on the distance we have travelled and have confidence the movement is abroad in Scotland that will take this Nation forward."

BBC’s Nick Robinson said: “This referendum may have ended one debate in Scotland – for now. It has however, lit the touch paper on the explosive question of where power lies in the UK.” David Cameron also committed himself to be offering Scotland new powers, but it made clear that this would depend on the next general election and a settlement that would exclude Scottish MPs from voting on many issues confined to England. Robinson suggests that this would create two classes of MP with the possibility of a government having a majority to pass certain laws but not others.

Hence for now, Scotland and the UK will carry on as they have for the past 300 years; but there will be some changes and they will not be the same as it was before.

Do We Need A Free Press? Is the answer just yes/no or is there something more to it?

A free press is vital, for the maintenance of a liberal democracy. It provides citizens, with the information and variety of opinion necessary for them to debate political issues openly and make their government accountable. Whereas, restrictions on media often indicate us about the government assaulting other democratic institutions.

 

According to Freedom house’s freedom of the press index, only 14% of the world’s citizens live in countries that enjoy a free press. In the rest of the world, governments as well as non-state actors control the viewpoints that reach citizens and brutally repress independent voices, who aim to promote accountability, good governance and economic development.

For instance, if we look at India, the freedom of the press is in danger because of the ownership of the newspaper industry and the predominance of some newspaper groups and chains. It is also suggested that the editors and journalists cannot have adequate freedom of collecting, disseminating and offering comments as they are under the pressure of the capitalist owners. This process of collecting and disseminating facts is not possible in the case of the newspapers, which depend to a large extent on revenge from advertisements (as the advertising interests cannot but influence the presentation of news and comments). Unless, this whole structure of ownership and control in the newspaper industry of press is changed, it is therefore suggested that the press cannot be really free.

I think , free press is necessary but till it remains in it's ethical boundaries!

Ian Hughes, truly said "The media are accused and blamed or praised and hailed, sometimes in almost the same breath, for their influence on the outcome of the democratic process. However, experience shows that when media becomes a mouthpiece for one particular political party or any personality related stories, they tend to be poorly researched or not factual. Opinion can be twisted to suit political-party paymasters: then their force for good distorts rather than reports, hides rather than reveals. Editors can and should have personal and professional opinions but factual reporting and political opinions must be clearly distinct."

Well, not only politically but media does misuse their freedom in general. In the past their have some cases like the phone hacking scandal and bribery of the police, in which its shown how a journalist has exploited his power by hacking 4,000 people’s phones. These are people from the parliament, royal families and teenage victims from the 9/11 case. Not only this, but the police was also bribed for 100,000 pounds for hacking and spying scandal.

In these circumstances journalists individually and collectively should shoulder the responsibility of maintaining the reputation of their profession. Journalists should often ask these questions to themselves- Are we fair? Are we thoughtful?