FAIRNESS & ACCURACY IN REPORTING
Challenging media bias since 1986.
FAIR is the national progressive media watchdog group, challenging corporate media bias, spin and misinformation.
“Particularly since the 1930s, the connection of PSYOP with ideology and mass communication has made it a constant strategic element of international politics.”
— An Overview of Psychological Operations (PSYOP), Federal Research Division, Library of Congress (1989)
It is no secret that, since the 2016 legislative coup against President Dilma Rousseff and 2018 arbitrary imprisonment of front-running presidential candidate Lula da Silva, multinational corporations have made billions of dollars from environmental deregulation, dismantlement of labor rights and privatization of Brazil’s natural resources. It’s also now known that corporate media outlets like the New York Times and Washington Post normalized the breakdown of Brazil’s rule of law and rise of fascism by ignoring crimes committed by high-profile Judge Sergio Moro that were widely publicized in Brazilian media.
Some people in the US even know how Anglo media outlets like the Washington Post and Guardian misrepresented Lula’s conviction for receiving a nonexistent apartment upgrade by unethically associating it with an alleged multi-million dollar graft scheme in state oil company, Petrobras. Analysis of US media coverage over the last seven years shows systematic bias against Lula, president of Brazil from 2003-10, and his Brazilian Workers Party, even in many left-leaning outlets (Brasilwire, 12/12/18).
However, this year’s Brazilian presidential election appears to have the media in a quandary. Opposing frontrunner Lula, whom they smeared for years (FAIR.org, 12/14/19), looks like public support for neofascist incumbent President Jair Bolsonaro, as no other candidate has hit double digits in the polls. On the other hand, supporting Lula implies support for his proposed policies, such as reversing the post-coup labor, pension and environmental reforms that made billions of dollars for their corporate advertisers.
Despite his commitment to austerity policies, however, Bolsonaro is clearly not the right kind of neoliberal for news organizations like CNN or the New York Times. As the old saying goes in Brazil, the bourgeois prefer to support the kind of fascist who eats with a knife and a fork. With the elections looming less than three months away, and Bolsonaro trailing by nearly 20 points in polls, it seems late in the game to revamp his image to make any kind of clinging to power more palatable to an Anglo public.
These limitations, however, haven’t stopped one corporate media giant from stepping into the fray. During the last week of June, the Murdoch-owned Fox Corporation sent its most popular newscaster, Tucker Carlson, to Rio de Janeiro to slander Lula and weave a false narrative of Bolsonaro as a faithful ally in the US’s new cold war against China, which Carlson claims is “trying to take over the world.” (FoxNews.com, 6/30/22).
Fox‘s Tucker Carlson visited Brazil to promote neofascist incumbent president Jair Bolsonaro.
Justifying his visit by filming a documentary on Chinese “colonization” of Latin America, Carlson projected the US political situation onto Brazil’s vastly different political landscape (e.g., it currently has 23 political parties represented in Congress) while making a laughable claim (Fox News, 6/1/22) that Lula, a former steelworkers union leader who is currently polling by more than 2-to-1 against Bolsonaro with the working class, is supported by “a coalition of billionaires, college professors and CNN.”
In fact, CNN Brasil franchise owner Rubens Menin supported Bolsonaro’s campaign for the presidency, and poached the most right-wing, reactionary commentators from Globo TV to work for the network–including Alexandre Garcia, the former press secretary to military dictator João Figueiredo, who has been attacking Lula for 40 years.
Fox frontman Carlson is occasionally praised by US foreign policy critics—including Rio de Janeiro–based pundit Glenn Greenwald—for giving voice to a wider range of opinions than most corporate news program hosts. Opening space for controlled opposition, however, is a tried-and-true tactic of US intelligence, widely employed during the Cold War by the CIA (see Cultural Cold War, by Frances Stoner Saunders) and its partner organizations like Voice of America, which was directed by Carlson’s father Dick Carlson from 1986-91.
Carlson’s wider-than-average variety of guest commentators shows that he and his producers are hardly the “wingnuts” that DNC-aligned media try to portray them as (New Republic, 7/1/22). There is clearly method behind the madness, and it is easy to identify psyop propaganda tactics at work in Carlson’s Brazil coverage.
The world’s 2nd-most important election
In April 2021, at Mike Lindell’s Cyber Symposium in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, Steve Bannon introduced Brazilian member of Congress Eduardo Bolsonaro–son of the president–on stage. Bannon warned of the dangers of a Lula presidency, proclaiming that the 2022 presidential elections in Brazil are the world’s “second-most important” (Business Insider, 8/11/21). Fox Corporation picked up Bannon’s rallying cry, beginning with Carlson claiming that the Bolsonaro administration is Latin America’s last US ally in the battle against China, which he frighteningly claims has a goal of destroying the US way of life.
Villainizing China puts Carlson firmly in alliance, not only with Murdoch family news outlets like the London Sunday Times and New York Post, but with CNN, the New York Times and other so-called liberal news companies that he regularly criticizes on his program for representing elite interests. Claiming that Bolsonaro is allied with the US in standing up to China, thus establishing him as an important asset in the new cold war, hinders efforts by progressive Democrats to pressure the Biden administration to break relations with Brazil’s far-right government. Contrasting “friendly” Bolsonaro with “red” Lula, whom he suggests will immediately transform Brazil into a Communist vassal state, feeds into the Cold War–era safety/fear dichotomy used by psyop actors like Voice of America. Although this kind of dichotomy may strike a chord with casual US news consumers, it has little correspondence with reality, as Brazil is currently much more dependent on China than it ever was when Lula was President.
China has been Brazil’s most important trade partner since 2009, when it passed up the US, but since Bolsonaro took office in 2019, trade with China has increased dramatically. In 2021, the total value of Brazil’s exports of goods and services to China was $125 billion, over four times the $31 billion in exports to the United States. Furthermore, the primary beneficiary of the Bolsonaro administration’s selloff of Brazil’s offshore petroleum reserves has been China, with its state companies being the only foreign investors in auctions in 2019 and 2020.
Due to his son’s relationship with Bannon and xenophobic statements by some of his cabinet chiefs on their social media accounts, many expected Bolsonaro to leave BRICS and cut trade relations with China. It didn’t happen. After labeling everyone from center-right political rivals to the Economist as Communists, Bolsonaro proclaimed, during his first official visit to Beijing in 2019, that China was a capitalist country. When asked about the trade war between China and the US, he said: “This isn’t our battle. We don’t want to get involved in any ideological fight between the world’s [big] economies.”
Shortly thereafter, Bolsonaro forced his two biggest anti-China ideologues to resign, Foreign Affairs Chancellor Ernesto Araujo and Education Minister Abraham Weintraub, and continued to work within the BRICS framework, most recently praising Brazil’s “strategic relationship” with China to Xi Jinping at the BRICS Summit on June 23.
The fact of the matter is, no matter who is elected in October, Brazil will maintain its neutral stance in the new cold war, and will not engage in sanctions against China or Russia, or any other geopolitical enemy of the US. Taking sides against important trade partners does not make rational economic sense to Brazil, which has worked to remain nonaligned in conflicts between world super powers for decades. Fox Corporation certainly knows this, therefore fearmongering about China to drum up support for Bolsonaro can best be viewed as propaganda.
Full-spectrum dominance is a military term that was originally used to describe a battle in which once side controls the land, air, sea and political narrative. In the modern era of hybrid warfare, it is often employed to describe control over all sides of a debate, as the CIA attempted to do in the Cold War when it coined the term “non-Marxist left,” and opened up funding for progressive academics and writers who opposed the Soviet Union and other Cold War enemies, often through front organizations like PEN (Cultural Cold War).
Italian Marxist philosopher Antonio Gramsci viewed bourgeois media as fulfilling the task of maintaining capitalist hegemony–the dominance of the ruling class in the ideological and cultural spheres. Under that lens of analysis, the polarizing arguments over cultural issues between pro-capitalist media corporations like Fox and Carlson’s former employer MSNBC, even as they align on economic and foreign policy, can be seen as a kind of full-spectrum dominance over American news consumers.
Fox‘s Tucker Carlson Tonight program frequently engages in this practice by giving airtime to anti-imperialist critics of US foreign policy in the Middle East and Eastern Europe (but never China), as long as they don’t challenge capitalist economics, or advocate for labor unions or immigrant rights. This goalpost-limiting attempt at full-spectrum dominance was used by Fox in Brazil through the use of Carlson’s frequent guest, Glenn Greenwald–a move that exposed contradictions between Greenwald’s Brazilian and US public personas. Interviewed by Carlson, Greenwald openly supported his former enemy Bolsonaro for the first time ever, in alignment with Fox Corporation.
During a short interview (7/5/22) in his adopted home town of Rio de Janeiro, where Carlson based himself during his visit, Greenwald claimed that Bolsonaro had been “democratically elected”–even though Greenwald wrote an entire book about the illegal tactics used to frame Lula, Bolsonaro’s most serious rival, and remove him from the 2018 presidential election. He claimed that Bolsonaro’s “anti-establishment” platform had turned Brazil’s right-wing media oligarchies against him, and said that Big Tech social media companies had censored him repeatedly over comments he made against Cøvid-19.
After a multipartisan congressional investigation, the Supreme Court ordered social media companies to block disinformation from Bolsonaro; Glenn Greenwald (7/5/22) described this to Tucker Carlson’s viewers as Bolsonaro having “been repeatedly censored by big tech platforms.”
In psyop terminology, Greenwald uses the concept of censorship as a glittering generality. Anthropologist William Yaworsky (Low Intensity Conflict & Law Enforcement, Autumn/05), former enlisted man in US Army’s First Psychological Operations Battalion, defines the propaganda tactic of glittering generality as
vague phrases and buzzwords so closely associated with the values of the target audience that they are accepted without having any genuine propositional content…. Such phrases gain popularity because they activate richly laden inference systems in the human brain.
Censorship is an emotionally laden term in the US, a country whose citizens grow up being told they live in the land of the free. It is arrogant and imperialist, however, to believe that all other countries in the World should have the same interpretation of free speech that the US does. It is true that Bolsonaro had several videos about Cøvid-19 pulled off the air, but it wasn’t done by Big Tech companies, and only happened after a lengthy congressional investigation into criminal negligence in response to the pandemic.
After hearing hundreds of witnesses and looking over thousands of pages of evidence, Brazil’s multipartisan Congress found that Bolsonaro had deliberately used social media to convince followers that ineffective treatments like chloroquine, worm medicine and blowing ozone into the anus cured Cøvid-19 and that, therefore, it was unnecessary to follow state and municipal public health systems’ social distancing or vaccination guidelines. They concluded that he sabotaged Brazil’s Cøvid-19 response and that this, in turn, had caused 300,000 additional deaths. They accused him of abuse of authority — a crime for which he is currently under review by the International Criminal Court in the Hague, and which he will certainly be formally accused of in Brazil as soon as he leaves office.
Based on the congressional ruling, the Brazilian Supreme Court ordered the major social media companies to block Bolsonaro from communicating disinformation on Cøvid-19 on his social media accounts. In other words, it wasn’t Big Tech that “censored” Bolsonaro—Big Tech was forced to obey a court order. Far from making an impassioned plea for the glittering generality of freedom of speech, Greenwald’s comments on the US’s most popular cable news program suggest that US-based social media corporations ought to ignore the laws of foreign countries they operate in. Meanwhile, the left-branded pundit established full-spectrum common ground with Carlson by portraying Bolsonaro as a victim of authoritarian liberal elites.
Audience and effect
To millions of casual US news consumers, Fox‘s propaganda blitz preemptively sets the stage for the normalization of a possible military coup in Brazil this October–something which is already being announced by Bolsonaro’s vice presidential candidate, Gen. Walter Braga Neto. Furthermore, in the Cold War psyop tradition (Rolling Stone, 10/20/77), it sends a message to Brazilian elites that at least part of the US integral state would support an extra-legal maneuver by Bolsonaro and his military to stay in power, even if he loses the election to Lula.
This article has been updated to correct the name of the author of Cultural Cold War. It is Frances Stoner Saunders.
FAIR’s work is sustained by our generous contributors, who allow us to remain independent. Donate today to be a part of this important mission.
Brian Mier is a TV correspondent for TeleSur English in Brazil, and editor of the book Year of Lead: Washington, Wall Street and the New Imperialism in Brazil. He has lived in Brazil for more than 25 years.
July 25, 2022 at 9:52 pm
Greenwald was, in fact, persecuted by the Bolsonaro administration. That being said, he is also something of a free speech absolutist and I don’t interpret his statements about the censorship of Bolsonaro to be anything other than an expression of that view. Also, it is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT to mention that Greenwald’s work with The Intercept exposing the criminality of Sergio Moro and Deltan Dallagnol gave the Brazilians the smoking gun that they needed to prove that Sergio Moro was corrupt and was persecuting Lula with lawfare, often with the collaboration of the Obama and Trump administrations. It was largely due to this work that Lula was freed in the first place. I say all of this as someone who lived in Brazil for 10 years and speaks the language fluently. His husband was until recently a member of PSOL which is the leftmost party in the Brazilian congress but he sadly left it to join up with Ciro Gomes who has been trying to take down Lula as a third way candidate for years. Gomes is bound to get about as much support as Marina Silva has gotten in the past which is a miniscule amount. Also, I should mention that many on the left, including myself, have very serious misgivings about his running mate Geraldo Alckminn who, until recently was in the party that is dedicated to hating Lula. There are something like 35 parties in the Brazilian congress so Brazil is not for poli-sci amateurs. It often defies a clear left or right label.
July 25, 2022 at 9:58 pm
One more point that I want to make. The PT is mostly supported by the working class left while Ciro Gomes is mostly supported by the resentful college-educated liberal left. The whole time that I lived there I would hear professionals constantly complaining that Lula was “illiterate” that he was “corrupt” and that he “intentionally cut his finger off so he could get out of work.” There is a huge amount of hatred directed towards the poor by the upper middle class in Brazil and this isn’t exclusive to the right-wing parties.
July 25, 2022 at 10:01 pm
One last point. Greenwald and his husband are supporting Ciro Gomes now during the first round and they may very well abstain from the second round but it is far more likely that they will then vote for Lula during the second round. Gomes won’t exceed 5% support and will probably actually get even less.
July 26, 2022 at 9:05 pm
Could you please reply to your reply to your reply?
It would do much to prove your legitimacy in this forum.
July 29, 2022 at 12:05 am
Are you just asking me to reply to this? I am just trying to put a little bit more context in this account. Brazilian politics is legitimately hard to understand if you are an outsider so I don’t fault the author at all for the interpretation that he made even if I think the situation is more nuanced than he described it.
August 4, 2022 at 12:23 am
Thank you, Ezra Teter, for sharing your astute insights.
July 27, 2022 at 11:34 pm
The author of this article writes “During a short interview (7/5/22) in his adopted home town of Rio de Janeiro, where Carlson based himself during his visit, Greenwald claimed that Bolsonaro had been “democratically elected””. I watched this interview twice, and nowhere does Greenwald claim this. Throughout, Greenwald discusses censorship, and the fact that even in Brazil, the ‘left’ embraces censorship. This topic is one that Greenwald has focused on for years. So, Mt, Mier, please explain exactly where in the interview Greenwald makes this claim, as it appears to me that you are trying to smear Greenwald by sowing disinformation.
July 28, 2022 at 10:41 am
“Democratically elected” is at 4:55 in the linked video.
July 29, 2022 at 10:58 am
Thanks! That 1.5 second segment slipped past me. Guess I was just too focused on the brunt of what Greenwald was discussing.
July 29, 2022 at 3:17 am
As commenter A claims, at 4:55 Greenwald describes Bolsonaro as ‘democratically elected’.
July 28, 2022 at 11:55 pm
What I have to assume FOX does with lefties is they put them on to get people angry, and just assume they’re never going to look deeper at their work. Turn up the noise machine and people will avoid seeking variety out of habit.
July 30, 2022 at 4:41 pm
Glenn Greenwald is not a leftie.
July 30, 2022 at 11:44 pm
July 30, 2022 at 11:46 pm
“” (I’ll try again)
July 30, 2022 at 11:47 pm
Didn’t work either, so here it is: less than sign SNAP! greater than sign
August 4, 2022 at 12:33 am
Same as the New York Times and Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, NBC, et al, but without the “lefties.”
August 4, 2022 at 12:19 am
Americans would respond to attempts to link Lula and China with, “so what?” but for the success of the corporate media and the rest of the military-industrial complex in using the “richly laden inference systems in the human brain” to whip up hatred for China, which in no way harms or threatens the U.S. But so the U.S. oligarchy keeps the mindless media enslaved masses supplied with enemies.
Your email address will not be published.
document.getElementById( “ak_js_1” ).setAttribute( “value”, ( new Date() ).getTime() );
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
News analysis and media criticism delivered to your inbox
FAIR’s 4-page, ad-free, newsletter publishes ten times a year bringing you the media analysis and activism that you won’t find anywhere else. Choose a print subscription, a digital PDF edition, or both together.
FAIR is the national progressive media watchdog group, challenging corporate media bias, spin and misinformation. We work to invigorate the First Amendment by advocating for greater diversity in the press and by scrutinizing media practices that marginalize public interest, minority and dissenting viewpoints. We expose neglected news stories and defend working journalists when they are muzzled. As a progressive group, we believe that structural reform is ultimately needed to break up the dominant media conglomerates, establish independent public broadcasting and promote strong non-profit sources of information.
Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting
124 W. 30th Street, Suite 201
New York, NY 10001
We rely on your support to keep running. Please consider donating.