‘Opinion is free, but stupidity is unforgivable,’ argues Pedro Ribeiro

Sgarbe: Pedro, we have talked for so long, and for so long never met in person, that I have the impression we have gone back to the 1990s, with the idea of the web-friend — laughs. Something that often unites us, back to the reality of this op-ed, is journalism, especially, what irony, op-eds. That reminds me of the idol Gladimir Nascimento. He kept us, beginners that we were, from putting listeners’ opinions on the air without a criterion of respect for the individual who would voice the opinion and for the one who would hear it. Something like Noah’s sons covering the old man who had overdone it with drink. Having introduced the subject in the worst way, I ask whether you think the 2022 press does well or badly to let so many asses through in the role of columnists, interviewees, etc. Would it not be a case of avoiding exposing these brothers to ridicule?

Pedro Ribeiro: Dear journalist Vinícius Sgarbe. In talking with you, this old survivor of letters, or of the quill, as Nilson Monteiro says, feels gratified and sure he will leave here with learning and knowledge. Having been honored as one of the “Voices of Paraná,” in Professor Aroldo Murá’s collection of Paraná personalities, and now talking with you, I even think I have a little importance or history in our journalism, where I began at Gazeta do Povo 45 years ago. A little. That’s all. Opinion pieces! You have no idea how many reach me each day at Paraná Portal. Each one hair-raising. That is why, after a filter, those I find interesting I run with a footer: this article does not necessarily represent the opinion of this newspaper and is the sole responsibility of its author. Today, dear Sgarbe, with social networks and so-called citizen journalism, everyone has been contributing, one way or another, with “opinion,” to the construction of democracy and the public sphere. Each has their reason. These are pieces that, in many cases, provoke debates, radical or not, and generate much controversy. Each person who writes an article is fully confident that their opinion is correct and, at times, we have dogmatic examples. We must never confuse opinion pieces with journalistic reporting, because, for me, journalism, although it is a space of counterpoint, has its commitment to the truth, to the reporting of facts, duly investigated. It is neutral. It has its values of freedom, dignity, respect and openness to the contradictory. Journalism, for me, my dear friend, is the pillar of democracy. Without newspapers there is no democracy. It is hard to have to tell a colleague, for example, that his article is nothing but a press release of personal or employer interest. He may take offense. I prefer to say that “the editorial board will evaluate” (laughs).

Sgarbe: Today, I came across one of those podcast clips in which a man says “only a fool never changes his mind.” It even reminds me of the Free cigarette ad. I think that man is right. We can redecide an opinion on the basis of new facts. I am reading a great book by Bion, “Learning from Experience,” a psychoanalytic text. I ask myself often, daily, what I have learned, after all. One of the things is that sarcasm can do a lot of harm to interpersonal relationships. With those relationships impaired, it is harder to transfer knowledge. I consider that sarcasm may even be an obstacle for someone searching for a truth. What I argue is that we, journalists, cannot bear the weight of a single point of view; we must leave the slavery of “lacrolândia” (the culture of online dunking). A strong opinion is welcome — very different from the silly comments anchors may make because they have nothing to say. A strong opinion requires a strong individual, a “whole woman,” a “whole man.” It seems hard for the 2022 journalist to understand that he does not need, and still does not need, to save the media’s farm, that the commercial and editorial roles are very well settled. He has to do his job, be loved by the people of his own family, by friends, but he does not need to beg for success when reporting the news.

Pedro Ribeiro: Leaving behind a radical, intolerant thought and changing with conviction is no shame; on the contrary, it is knowing how to recognize that the earth is round and not flat, that the line moves. It is healthy, it does the soul good. Reflecting and self-criticizing about points of view oxygenates our brain and makes us follow a true path. Our country, one of the largest democracies in the world, demands this. It is a country that experiences and breathes freedom, at least in post-dictatorship journalism. What we see are some isolated things such as intolerance about electronic voting machines, attempted coups, small things that do not even scratch the democratic system. Nothing violent. Opinion is free, but stupidity is unforgivable, because you have time to learn and innovate. As a journalist who writes editorials (articles of one’s own opinion and of the paper’s line of thought), I err and try to correct my errors and, sometimes, change my opinion. That is not shameful to me. Many friends ask me: will you vote for the thief? I answer, chest out as a non-engaged journalist, that I vote for whoever is best and, in our case, today, for whoever is least bad. The thief may have learned on the pau de arara (a torture method), with lashes on his back, but the fool, the radical, is worse. That is my “opinion” and I can change it if someone proves to me that on the other side we will have an economic and social program for our country that favors the thin layer of society and not the little more than 500 members of Congress and another 55 thousand authorities who have privileged jurisdiction. Secret budgets, money by the bucketful from the Electoral Fund. That does not match my line of journalistic thought. In this case, I am even radical and sometimes overdo it. But I do not bend my knees. I see many fellow journalists today who have a correct line and pray by the primer of good journalism like one who swears with a hand on the Bible or before the Courts to tell the truth, only the truth. Our country lacks leadership. Brazil today is the picture of its own rearview mirror, or mirror. A hug, Sgarbe.

Sgarbe: Thank you for the lesson, Pedro! Hug.