By OSNAN SILVA DE SOUZA*

Hegemonic journalism relies on a narrative without any type of historical, sociological or political support

1.

In the edition of UOL News On April 11, 2025, presenter Fabíola Cidral asked her fellow panelists for their thoughts on the Datafolha data, which shows that “58% think Tarcísio should be reelected in São Paulo and 30%, the presidency”. Madeleine Lacsko was direct and categorical: the governor’s “strength” lies in the fact that he “eats with a knife and fork; he’s not crazy and he’s part of a new generation, because that’s what people are looking for”.

Furthermore: “We have politicians who are from a generation from forty years ago and who should already be acting as political advisors, who should have already chosen their successors and who are governing in an old-fashioned way, appealing to populism; populism is when they think they are the only legitimate representatives of the people; the people talk to them directly, both Lula and Bolsonaro are like that, and they are people who have been around since the 70s and 80s. Okay! They are great populist leaders, they are very charismatic, but they are governing for a world that is particular to them, which is not that of today's society. Another generation needs to come in! It is time for a new generation! It is time to stop this madness, which is the politics of 'us against them', which has already tired the country.”[I]

The old nonsense of the new politics. The journalist continues, thus, expressing her concern about the lack of a solid right-wing candidate: Tarcísio de Freitas needs to hurry up to avoid the risk of experiencing what happened to Fernando Haddad in 2018: defeat. The new generation – Tarcísio de Freitas – needs to organize itself urgently and sweep the old politics – represented by Lula da Silva and the Workers' Party (PT) – into the past.

This old policy also includes Jair Bolsonaro, who is a populist and incapable of meeting new demands. The current and former presidents would be in the same basket. It is, in fact, an impoverished and incoherent analysis. First of all, it is very shameless to want to put Tarcísio de Freitas and Jair Bolsonaro on divergent poles, because the former “eats with a knife and fork”. Nonsense. Come on! It is the governor who is on the platform asking for amnesty for the coup plotters! With his cap Make America Great Again, he continues with the main heir to Jair Bolsonaro's coup.

As for the comparison between Lula da Silva and Bolsonaro, it is also not new. Let us remember the famous – and never forgotten – editorial of Estadão: a difficult choice in 2018. But even with the steamroller of Jair Bolsonaro's government in the pandemic and the economy, attempts to compare him to Lula continued. Today, in the face of serious and well-founded allegations of criminal organization, attempted coup d'état and murder, the idea that "it's all the same thing" remains firm, as we can see. The person who allegedly planned not only the overthrow of a democratically elected government, but also the death of the president, is equated with the victim.

2.

In February of this year, Eliane Cantanhêde, faced with the President of the Republic's disapproval, came forward and prophesied: "the question is whether Lula has the conditions to recover by 2026 – not for reelection, which is off the radar, but to choose a successor." There is no way out, the president is out of the game – his reelection should not even be in the cards: after all, Lula has already handed over "the country to the right wing with a silver platter."

Now “it remains to be seen which one is right.” The great journalist continues: “Lula is losing his way and the media and his greatest threat comes from the PT itself: a shift to the left, in a country and a world that is increasingly right-wing, would be the final straw.” Another nonsensical analysis. For Eliane Cantanhêde, Lula would no longer have the political capital or popularity to run for reelection, but he would have the right to choose a successor – which is often more difficult. But in fact, throughout her article, the author states that such a succession is impossible: “the Fernando Haddad option, which seemed and was the best, has crumbled.”[ii]

Let us continue, however, with the great journalist. Still in Estadão, in mid-December 2024, that is, two months before the publication we have just glimpsed, Eliane Cantanhêde had already fired against the hopes of those who want a “Lula IV”: “there is no point in hiding the sun with a sieve”, she said… Although Lula is a strong and healthy man for his 79 years, he is not “a politician with enough energy and vitality to run for a fourth term in 2026”.

There you have it: “with Jair Bolsonaro out and Lula increasingly distant, renewal in 2026 is a reality”. Very simple. Even more so: “the two biggest concerns of the population are, precisely, the economy and (lack of) security. With Bolsonaro ineligible and in trouble and Lula still willing to run, but increasingly distancing himself from the intention and conditions, it is convenient for the candidates for renewal to prioritize these two issues”.[iii]

Although in a more refined manner, Eliane Cantanhêde is in dialogue with Madeleine Lacsko. While the latter presents the governor of São Paulo as the symbol of the “new generation” and calls on him to sweep the “old generation” led by Lula and Bolsonaro – the twin monsters – into the past, the former uses the term “renewal”. The President of the Republic would be devoid not only of political capital to attempt reelection, but also of physical vigor. But this would be a positive thing, since it would already be decreed that in 2026 we would have a renewal.

Renewal – even with “experienced” politicians, such as Tarcísio de Freitas – is obviously seen as something positive. Brazil would be rid of something old – in a double sense – and outdated. Just like the two journalists, several analysts and sectors of the press have announced and prophesied the end of Lula and the irrevocable impossibility of his reelection. This is less a critical analysis, based on historical and social data and reflections, and more a wish.

3.

Reinaldo Azevedo – a journalist who is not suspected of being a “leftist” – has denounced what he calls “columnism” and “research” by journalists and other individuals who try to equate Lula and Jair Bolsonaro; they announce the political death of the former and flirt with coup plotting, asking for reduced sentences and amnesty for the coup plotters.

But there is more: when Lula entrusted Gleisi Hoffmann with the important mission of taking over the Secretariat of Institutional Relations – even though she was described by the press as “radical”, “Fernando Haddad’s rival” and incapable of making connections in Congress – and praised her beauty, in addition to the flood of attacks and attempts to distort the President’s words, there was no shortage of comparisons between him and the leader of the Brazilian far right: “Lula and Bolsonaro accumulate sexist phrases”, was the headline in an article at the time, Folha de São Paulo.

Let us remember what the Chief Executive said: “It is very important to bring the Speaker of the Chamber of Deputies and the President of the Senate here. Because one thing I want to change is to establish relations with you. That is why I appointed this beautiful woman to be Minister of Institutional Relations, because I no longer want to be distant from you.”[iv]

The reference to Gleisi Hoffmann's beauty is on the same level as Jair Bolsonaro's speeches, who “days before, had appeared in a video calling PT women ugly and inedible”.[v] Both men allegedly have a history of hostility toward women. Not only that, the press, which has always underestimated the potential of the former president of the Workers' Party to take office – appointed by the President himself – is now attacking Lula's speech, which only outraged Andréia Sadi and other followers, who gave the far right a basis for using the distortion in a sordid manner.

But, even though it was not a hostile speech, let us remember what the President said about Hoffmann, earlier this year: “Gleisi was once Dilma (Rousseff)’s Chief of Staff. I was in prison and was one of those responsible for Gleisi becoming president of our party. Gleisi is a very refined person. Politically, there are few people in this country more refined than Gleisi.”[vi]

If the President's confidence in Gleisi Hoffmann to take on one of the most important positions in the Executive Branch is not mentioned in the columnists' arguments, you can say that he praises her professional and intellectual capacity. In fact, in recent days we have been faced with a similar movement, due to a scathing criticism made of the IMF's managing director – and the entire institution!

Let's look at Lula's speech, based on an excerpt taken from the Portal G1: “I was in Hiroshima on January 25th of last year. I was there visiting, me and the president of the United States, where the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. If I were president of the United States, I wouldn’t go to the place where the bomb was dropped, but he went. And there I met a little woman, a president of the IMF, director general of the IMF, she didn’t even know me [makes a small voice]: ‘President Lula, President Lula, you know that Brazil, things are difficult for Brazil. Brazil will only grow 0,8%’. I said: you don’t even know me, I don’t know you, how can you say that Brazil will only grow 0,8%?”

The attentive observer will notice that the term “little woman” is not used in a pejorative or hostile way. But let’s leave that aside.

4.

In fact, the speech by the Chief Executive brings us to two issues of extreme historical and political relevance. Lula da Silva does not let the opportunity pass and denounces what some historians point out as the greatest terrorist attack in history: the nuclear annihilation of two civilian Japanese cities – an annihilation that was aimed less at the country that was hit (already close to capitulation) and more at sending a warning to the USSR. Secondly, we are faced with an indignation that reveals the defense of national sovereignty, that is, of the IMF's non-interference in Brazil's economic policy matters.

But Lula's speech was an opportunity for Andréia Sadi to once again take action, full of indignation, in GloboNews: “Sometimes I have the impression that if you put some lines… you know those quizzes ‘who said this phrase?’… With that sexist tone that the president used to refer to Kristalina Georgieva, who is the director of the International Monetary Fund, you don’t know if it was Lula, if it was Bolsonaro…”[vii]

Once again we find ourselves faced with the equivalence of two figures – two twin monsters – which, in fact, are completely opposite and antagonistic. But let us continue on GloboNews and dealing with the speech of the President of the Republic.

This time we gave the floor to another journalist, the eloquent Flávia Oliveira: “This is an absolutely wrong way to deal with a pertinent subject. Look: he wants to talk about the errors in forecasts regarding the Brazilian economy, whether by the IMF or by Brazilian analysts. This criticism is valid. In fact, there were a ton of errors regarding the projections for the Brazilian economy. But why be misogynistic? And it’s curious, because less than two days ago, Lula defended, at the CELAC meeting in Honduras, a woman Secretary General of the UN: he would like to see the first woman Secretary General of the United Nations. Then, he made a reference to female representation.”

Well! In the analysis by Andréia Sadi – who compares Lula and Bolsonaro in terms of their way of dealing with women – not only does history disappear, but politics as well. There is no contextualization. In fact, she takes a few seconds of footage, forgets what topic is being discussed and launches an attack on the President: she does not see, based on his speeches, any dissimilarities between him and the leader of the Brazilian far right. But this is not such a recent movement.

Back in November 2019, experienced journalist Kennedy Alencar denounced this strategy: “The story of equating Lula with Bolsonaro has begun. It is false impartiality, false balance. Lula is a left-wing moderate committed to democracy. Bolsonaro is an authoritarian right-wing extremist. They are not two sides of the same coin. Equalizing differences is normalizing Bolsonaro.”[viii]

A year later, Francisco Ladeira and Maria Fernanda Bispo, in an article published in Press Observatory, denounced: “the media seeks to present Lula and Bolsonaro as two sides of the same coin”.[ix] The authors showed how several media outlets try to equate Lula and Bolsonaro on different levels: in their positioning regarding the Covid 19 pandemic, in the way they refer to women, in their populism. Two extremists who end up meeting at the other end.

Faced with the attempt to construct the myth of the two twin monsters, The Intercept was categorical: “whoever compares Lula to Bolsonaro is lying, not expressing an opinion”. This is 2021. The journalist points out that “by becoming eligible this week, Lula made the majority of the press go back to betting on the polarization refrain so often repeated in the last elections”.

And so it continues: “This is the descending fallacy of Estadão’s “very difficult choice.” Lula governed for eight years, left office with almost 90% approval and is recognized worldwide as a democrat. Bolsonaro leads an authoritarian, coup-plotting project that has almost permanently attacked democratic institutions in the last two years. While Lula took Brazil off the hunger map, Jair Bolsonaro put us on the death map. Comparing an authoritarian and coup-plotting man with a democrat who left government with almost unanimous approval has a name: intellectual dishonesty.”[X]

We see, therefore, that since Jair Bolsonaro’s rise to power and the spread of Bolsonarism in Brazil, the dominant language has sought to equate the far-right leader with Lula da Silva. Neither his actions in the COVID-19 pandemic nor his attempted coup d’état and assassination – of the president himself! – have changed this narrative. In fact, with a view to the 2026 elections, there has been an intensification of treating the current head of the Brazilian Executive as a political “old man” of which the coup leader is a part.

With Haddad out of the game (his disapproval rating increases with that of his boss), renewal is symbolized by the figure of Tarcísio de Freitas, the one who “eats with a knife and fork”, who “is not crazy”. These analyses (?) lack not only coherence and history, but also politics.

Em Stalin: Critical History of a Black Legend, Domenico Losurdo reflects on the movement of the dominant language that attempted, especially since the Cold War, but still in our days, based on the “repression of history and the construction of a mythology”, to equate Stalin and Hitler “as twin monsters”. It tried to make people believe that these two antagonistic personalities were equivalent both on the political and moral planes. Furthermore, there was “a kind of reciprocal attraction” between the Soviet leader and the leader of the Third Reich.[xi]

This is a narrative without any kind of historical, sociological or political support. We see something similar happening in Brazil.

*Osnan Silva de Souza He is a PhD student in history at Unicamp.

Notes

[I] UOL NEWS, “US x China: Xi Jinping responds to Trump on tariffs; Bolsonaro is hospitalized in the North and more news”, April 11, 2025. Available at:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBZiIV5val4.

[ii] Eliane Cantanhêde. Lula hands the country over to the right wing. The question remains as to which right wing. Estadão, 15 Feb 2025. Available at: https://www.estadao.com.br/politica/eliane-cantanhede/lula-entrega-o-pais-de-mao-beijada-para-a-direita-resta-saber-qual-a-direita/?srsltid=AfmBOooNM1zgMPM9XyMOQe0vKmQtvWqgwW2ATQsB12qEkrMNTJQKJ1MF

[iii] Eliane Cantanhêde. With Bolsonaro out and Lula increasingly distant, renewal in 2026 is a reality. Estadão, 12 Dec. 2024. Available at: https://www.estadao.com.br/politica/eliane-cantanhede/com-bolsonaro-fora-e-lula-cada-vez-mais-distante-a-renovacao-em-2026-e-uma-realidade/?srsltid=AfmBOoogesyvVoeHLmQd1a8-ILnR3y7aggHTnqMVqYP_dX-JTD8tzHUG

[iv] Folha de São Paulo, “Lula and Bolsonaro accumulate sexist phrases; remember”, March 14, 2025. Available at:  https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/poder/2025/03/lula-e-bolsonaro-acumulam-frases-machistas-relembre.shtml.

[v] Idem.

[vi] UOL. “Lula says that ‘changing ministers is the president’s responsibility’ and praises Gleisi”, January 30, 2025. Available at: https://noticias.uol.com.br/ultimas-noticias/agencia-estado/2025/01/30/lula-diz-que-trocar-ministro-e-da-alcada-do-presidente-e-elogia-gleisi.htm?cmpid=copiaecola.

[vii][vii] GloboNews (Instagram page), April 12, 2025. Available at: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DIUQjyNoyqP/?igsh=MWo2bTB6cGV2b3Bxaw%3D%3D.

GloboNews (Facebook page), April 12, 2025. Available at: https://www.facebook.com/GloboNews/videos/698086242565962/?mibe.xtid=rS40aB7S9Ucbxw6v

[viii] BRAZIL 247. “Kennedy: Bolsonaro and Lula are not two sides of the same coin”, November 8, 2019. Available at: https://www.brasil247.com/midia/kennedy-bolsonaro-e-lula-nao-sao-dois-lados-da-mesma-moeda.

[ix] Press Observatory. “Media seeks to present Lula and Bolsonaro as two sides of the same coin | Press Observatory”, May 26, 2020. Available at: https://www.observatoriodaimprensa.com.br/crise-politica/midia-busca-apresentar-lula-e-bolsonaro-como-dois-lados-da-mesma-moeda/.

[X] The Intercept Brazil. “Anyone who compares Lula to Bolsonaro is lying, not expressing an opinion”, March 14, 2021. Available at: https://www.intercept.com.br/2021/03/14/lula-bolsonaro-equipara-polarizacao/.

[xi] Domenico Losurdo. Stalin: Critical History of a Black Legend. Rio de Janeiro: Editora Revan, 2010.

the earth is round there is thanks to our readers and supporters.
Help us keep this idea going.
CONTRIBUTE