Orkut

A very large part of Brazil's online life is going on inside Orkut. Still, most of the Brazilian mainstream media and the blogosphere don't pay much attention to this social networking service, unless there's something bad to be said about it. News about hate-groups meeting at Orkut, or about pedophiles using of the social networking service to exchange child pornography or to hunt for potential victims, are fairly common on both the Brazilian media and blogosphere. But what else is going on there? Who might be all these Brazilians at Orkut, and what are they doing there?

To give Global Voices Online readers some insight into the answers to these questions, let's take a quick look at some of the Brazilian activity at Orkut, and you're invited to come along if you have an Orkut profile or a Google account - you need at least a basic registration — in order to follow the links:

First of all, let's take a look at some profiles. The first thing you notice is… Brazilians have a lot of friends. It's very common in Brazil to add everyone you know — or even just heard of — and fake or “non-person” profiles to your friend's list. More than that, it's usual to add people you don't know and don't even want to know, just in case you wish to visit their profiles someday. It's also easy to notice how fond we are of showing pictures of ourselves and our friends, except when we want to look particularly cool (and that's fairly less common). Most profiles are very colorful in language and imagery, and show a lot about what it's intended for the profile viewers to know about the people behind them. It's easy to feel that despite personal taste differences, Brazilians feel very “at home” at Orkut and their profiles are testimony to this.

Gigi is famous on the scene. Lots of friends, lots of pictures, long description, busy scrapbook: Typical Brazil.

The scrapbooks, places where users can leave open short messages to others on their profiles, are heavily used not only to chat, sometimes to many people at a time — is if everyone was in a house meeting or a party — but are also usual places to advertise parties, events and share quotes and textual fragments. It's a matter of opinion whether these are spam or just free-form personal advertising.

Fake profiles, as well as bogus communities — like this one named “it must be boring to be a tree” — are very common. However, more than causing mayhem, these are more commonly put to mostly healthy humorous uses. Some even say Brazilians rise fake profiles and bogus communities to a work of art.

On the “I woke up somewhat bilingual today” they don't even have forum topics. The community was made just for the fun of having it's banner on their profiles.

Now, let's take a look at the communities. Besides the vast majority of communities aimed more to provide humorous or ideological “badges” for their members to show on their profiles than places for real conversations, there are a lot of serious communities too, and a lot of interesting and passionate debates are going on there. Let's take two examples. one from a community discussing the women's right do decide on abortion and the other from a community discussing Brazilian ban on WordPress.

Abortion is only legal in Brazil in cases of sexual abuse or pregnancy that endangers the mother's life. In this thread about whose interests were behind the legalization of abortion in Brazil, on the community “Aborto: um tema em debate” [”Abortion: a matter under discussion”], mor@ngoღღ says [Pt]:

“[…]Hoje li um texto* que no mínimo aguçou essa minha vontade de esclarecer a questão. Trata-se dos dizeres do Professor Humberto Vieira presidente da PROVIDAFAMILIA.

De acordo com sua pesquisa, ele mostra que existem correntes eugenistas que pregam o controle populacional usando entre outros recursos o aborto.

Essas correntes seriam responsáveis por discursos bem parecidos com o que vemos aqui. Por detrás de um feminismo de fachada querem reduzir-nos em número para que não representemos uma ameaça ao domínio dos países imperialistas.[…]“

“[…]I read an article today that sharpened my urge to clarify [this] matter. It was about what professor Humberto Vieira, president of PROVIDAFAMILIA [roughly: “PRO-LIFE-AND-FAMILY”] association, says. According to his researches, he shows that there are some eugenic factions that preach the population control using, among other methods, abortion. These factions were responsible for speeches that are very similar to the [pro-choice] ones we see here. Hiding behind a facade of shallow feminism, they want to reduce our numbers so we don't represent a menace to the imperialist countries domination.[…]”

Then Jose Guilherme furiously retorts [Pt]:

“[…]se vc levou a sério esse texto mediocre e paranoico por favor vai pra comunidade do Olavo de Carvalho. Pq lá é que eles gostam dessas teorias de dominação mundial.

E se for verdade ? Vamos deixar de fazer algo pq os outros querem isso ? Vamos ditar as nossas políticas públicas para contrariar aos supostos “imperialistas” e não pq interessa ou não ao país ? E como diminuir população ajuda os “imperialistas” ? Tudo vago e sem explicação… claro…“

“[…]if u took this mediocre and paranoid article seriously, u should go to the Olavo de Carvalho community. ‘Cos they really like these world-domination theories over there. And what if it's true? Should we refrain from doing something just because someone else wants us to? Should we modify our public policies just to counteract some supposed ‘imperialists', and not because it is in our country's best interests? And how does reducing the population help the ‘imperialists'? All very vague and with no explanations… of course…”

Politely, mor@ngoღღ tries to support her point:

“Eu entendo controle de natalidade como determinar quantos filhos cada pessoa deve ter. Diferente de planejamento familiar. Pelo menos era o que eu pensava. Eu via planejamento familiar como dar ferramentas para que as pessoas escolhessem quantos filhos querem ter…
Mas se a campanha vier acompanhada de atos proibitivos ou punitivos vira controle de natalidade, isso eu sou contra.“

“I understand birth control as the determination of to how many kids a person is allowed to give birth. It's not the same as family planning. At least, that's what I used to believe. I used to see family planning as bestowing tools for people to choose how many children they want to have… but if the campaign includes prohibitive or punitive acts, it becomes birth control, and I am against that.”

Kelli joins the conversation saying [Pt]:

” Meio incoerente não?
[…]
Aborto criminalizado é um ato proibitivo e punitivo, então vc tbm é contra?“

“Doesn't it sound a little incoherent? […] The ban on the abortion is a prohibitive and punitive act. So, you're against this [ban]?”

Then José Guilherme delivers his coup-de-grâce:

“Morango […] Esse discurso é meramente uma forma de atacar a legitimidade de quem é a favor da legalização. Pintar essas pessoas ou como capachos de “agentes” externos… ou como ingenuos manipulados. Ou seja… ao invês de debater as questões… buscam atacar as pessoas e suas motivações. Ad Hominem em escala grande.
Na ANDSC menos de 25% das mulheres disseram que abortariam/abortaram… então ao menos 75% realmente acreditam que as OUTRAS devem ter esse direito sem que isso seja reflexo de interesse proprio.
As teorias ditas “Freakonomics” de controle da natalidade tambem foram rejeitadas pela ANDSC.“

“Morango […] your speech is merely a way to undermine the legitimacy of those who fight for the legalization [of the abortion]. To make them look like servants to external ‘agents'… or like manipulated naive people. So… instead of discussing the important matters… [you] seek to attack people and their motivations. It's a mass Ad Hominem [argument]. At the ANDSC [Aborto não deve ser crime - “abortion should not be a crime” [Pt], a pro-choice Orkut community] less than 25% of the women said they would eventually get an abortion, or have already had one… so, at least 75% of them really believe the OTHER ones should have this right [to choose], without any personal interest involved. The mentioned ‘Freakonomics‘ birth control theories were rejected, too, at ANDSC.”

At another community, about the Brazilian justice threat to ban Wordpress.com domain [Pt] (already discussed here and in many other places), there's a thread where the members show their discontent at the idea of one million users being punished for just one blogger's misdeeds. Paulo calls its peers into action:

“Calar a boca de 1 milhão pelo erro de um ?
Não podemos deixar isto acontecer. Se alguém errou, que pague-se pelo ato cometido, mas não se pode penalizar uma coletividade, devido o erro de um indivíduo.
Temos que chamar a atenção da mídia e da sociedade para este cerceamento da liberdade que querem cometer.
Mande e-mails para os amigos, para a imprensa, para autoridades.
Se nos omitirmos, teremos nossa boca calada. E depois não adianta chorar. “

“Silencing one million [users] to punish for just one's mistake? We can't let it happen. If someone misbehaved, he or she should pay for his/her acts, but you can't punish the entire collective for just one individual's misdeeds. We must call the media and the society attention to this violation of our freedoms that they want to commit. Send emails to your friends, to the media and to the authorities. If we omit ourselves, we will have our mouth shut, and then it will be no use to crying over this.”

Athos seems to agree with Pedro, and vents his frustration over his faceless suspect [Pt]:

” Se verem um blog de pornografia,denunciem.
Vai ver é ele que fez toda a merda.“

“If you see a pornographic blog, report it. Maybe it was the responsible for all this shit.”

There's always a lot to say about Brazilian use of Orkut. On my next articles, I'll try to keep track of it, and use it together with the Brazilian conversations on the blogosphere, to amplify Brazilian voices on the Internet. This will surely provide a better picture of what we have to say to each other, and to the world.

As a bonus, here is a video, provided by José Murilo in his blog Ecologia Digital [Pt], where we can watch John Perry Barlow — political activist, social thinker and mythical band Grateful Dead's lyrics writer — explaining his views on Orkut and Brazil, and telling us how he may have been an important part of all this Brazilian online party:

—

The author of this article is on Orkut too. He may be found here. Don't forget to leave your opinion about his cat. Both man and cat appreciate it a lot.

(author's note: most of Orkut links in this article are in Portuguese)

A criminal investigation followed, and police questioned the father's and stepmother's versions of the story. There is conflicting evidence. The case has received nonstop coverage[Pt] on Brazilian blogs and big media. There is still a long way for the investigation to go before a verdict, but many suspect Isabella's father and his wife may be the young girl's murderers.

This version of the facts has been repeated over and over in the last few days by Rede Globo, Folha de São Paulo, Estado de São Paulo and many other Brazilian TV stations and newspapers, not to mention on thousands of blogs around Brazil.

In the past, major Brazilian mainstream media groups haven't always been careful when branding this or that suspect guilty of a crime. The Brazilian police and investigation bureaus have often been pressured into giving the media information and statements designed to make individuals under investigation look guilty in the eyes of the public before the investigations are concluded. If, at the end of the official investigation, it is revealed that the real culprit was someone else, the same newspapers have rarely bothered to correct these mistakes, quickly moving on to the next playoff goal, political scandal or horrible death.

And the media circus and finger pointing is ramping up yet again in the case of Isabella Nardoni. Guilty or innocent of the horrible crime, Isabella's father and stepmother have already been declared guilty under the spotlight of Brazilian newspapers and TV shows, and one of the greatest supporters of these statements is the public prosecutor working on the case, Francisco Cembranelli, who has given many interviews suggesting that he does believe the investigations will establish the couple guilty of the murder.

Let's check in on what the Brazilian blogosphere thinks about the case.

C.Fagundes, from e-esquina [Pt], came up with this image, linking Rede Globo's coverage of the crime with the Big Brother Brasil reality show, aired on the same station:

The image reads “Big-who-killed-the-girl-Brother-Brasil”.

Ismael, from O Malfazejo 2.0 (”The Evildoer 2.0″), also makes a joke about Rede Globo's “reality-show interactivity” coverage of the crime [Pt]:

“Breve nos programas do horário nobre da Globo nova enquete interativa: Se você acha que o assassino de Isabela Nardoni é o pai, ligue para 0300-703-584-01. Para votar na madrasta, ligue para 0300-703-584-02. Para votar na mãe da menina, ligue para 0300-703-584-03. […] A ligação é gratuita.”

“Soon, during Globo's prime time program grid, a new interactive poll: If you think Isabela Nardoni's murderer is the father, call 0300-703-584-01. To vote for the stepmother, call 0300-703-584-02. To vote for the girls mother, call 0300-703-584-03. […] The call is toll free.”

On April 9th, Ricardo Noblat, a journalist who writes a blog hosted by Globo.com - Rede Globo's Internet portal - wrote a post with breaking news [Pt] about the case:

“Foi o pai, Alexandre Nardoni, que jogou pela janela a filha Isabella Nardoni, de 5 anos. A informação foi dada esta tarde pelo promotor Francisco José Cembranelli em conversa reservada com um grupo de jornalistas. No passado o promotor foi professor de Alexandre. Refere-se a ele como “um vagabundo, que sempre viveu às custas do pai, um playboy”.”

“It was the father, Alexandre Nardoni, who threw his daughter, 5 years old Isabella Nardoni, trough the window. The information was given this afternoon by the prosecutor Francisco José Cembranelli in a private conversation with a group of journalists. In the past, the prosecutor had Alexandre as one of his students. He refers to him as “a slob, who always lived on his father expenses, a playboy”.”

Next day, when asked by reporters about the statements Noblat quoted him as saying, Cembranelli denied having said anything like that, and made personal attacks to the blogger-journalist Noblat. Right after this, more than 200 comments were made on Noblat's post - most of them accusing Noblat of fabricating news or standing over dubious sources to make his statements. Up to now, Noblat has been answering patiently to all comments, keeping his faith in his sources and in what he stated before, and accusing Cembranelli of denying falsely what he had effectively said before, in that conversation with journalists.

About prosecutor Cembranelli, Academia Brasileira de Idéias Confusas (”Brazilian Academy of Confused Thoughts”) writes the words below in their post entitled “which the biggest tragedy?” [Pt]:

“Já restou mais do que evidente a vontade de Francisco Cembranelli de ter a imagem associada ao um crime bárbaro para aparecer na mídia e ser lembrado pela participação em um caso de imensa repercussão nacional. Transparece, ainda, a vontade de que sejam, efetivamente, os pais os culpados pelo ocorrido, porque nessa hipótese o julgamento será espetacular, com mais holofotes e exposição pública. Se tudo isso decorre de mera vaidade ou se há no ar o cheiro de alguma vantagem decorrente do episódio, é uma incógnita. Em todo caso, parece desagradável que face a um crime tão bárbaro um ou outro sejam satisfeitos.”

“Francisco Cembranelli's desire for having his image associated with a savage crime, so that he can appear a lot in the media and be remembered by his participation in a case of immense country-wide repercussion is more than obvious. It is transparent, too, wishes for the parents to be effectively declared guilty of what happened, because in this case the trial will be spectacular, with even more spotlights and public exposure. Whether all this comes from mere vanity, or whether there is in the air the smell of some advantage to be derived from the episode, is a mystery. Either way, it's uncomfortable to feel that in face of such a terrible crime one or another may be satisfied.”

On the above post, Cranio comments [Pt]:

“Neste caso mais uma vez fico pensando se toda midiatização de uma tragédia familiar poderá trazer algum benefício à sociedade. […] será que alguém que pensava em atirar uma criança pela janela irá repensar sua atitude? Será que criaremos leis que impossibilitem este tipo de tragédia? Ou apenas não havia nada de inteligente para veicular nos telejornais e aproveitam-se do gosto por sangue que existe na maioria da população e com isto aumentar seu ibope?”

“In this case, I keep wondering if all this ‘mediatization' of a familiar tragedy will bring any benefit to the society. [… ] would someone who may be thinking about throwing a kid out of the window rethink their attitude? Will we create laws that prevent such tragedies to ever happen again? Or maybe simply there wasn't anything intelligent to air on the TV news and they took advantage of the distinct ‘thirst for blood' of a large part of our population, just to raise their audience?”

Guilherme Fiuza [Pt], a distinguished Brazilian blogger-journalist, experienced an ordeal somewhat similar to the one to which the Nardoni couple has been subjected. Eighteen years ago, he lost his newborn first son in a tragic domestic accident. At first, Fiuza and his ex-wife were accused of causing of the boy's death, and his neighbours and several people Fiuza says he had never seen before started fabricating stories confirming them as cold-blooded murderers, until it was proven they were innocent. Fiuza doesn't mention that he received any apologies. About his past experience and Isabella Nardoni's case, he writes [Pt]:

“Se não é possível à coletividade imaginar na sua própria pele o ardor da tragédia, já seria um belo avanço civilizatório se ela entendesse, de uma vez por todas, que a vida (dos outros) não é um Big Brother.”

“If it's not possible for people to imagine in their own skin the burning feeling of tragedy, it would be already a great civilized advance if they could understand, once and for all, that (others) lives are not a Big Brother.”

About the hurried interviews given by the Police Inspector responsible for the case, who told reporters that “the investigation is 70% concluded” since the early days after the death of Isabella, Fiuza adds [Pt]:

“A delegada do caso Isabella informou que 70% do crime estão esclarecidos. Notícia importante.
[…]
Mas, doutora delegada, e se nos últimos 30% aparecer um personagem novo confessando o assassinato? Nesse caso, doutora, seus atuais 70% serão iguais a zero.
Jamais se viu, em toda a história da investigação criminal, um caso 70% esclarecido. Das duas, uma: ou a delegada é uma revolucionária, ou é uma irresponsável.”

“The Police Inspector responsible for Isabella's case informs us that 70% of the crime has already been solved. This is important news. […] But, what happens if during the last 30% some new character shows up and admits the murder? In this case, lady, yours 70% are equal to zero. We have never seen, in all the criminal investigation history, a 70% solved case. Either the Inspector is a revolutionary, or she is irresponsible.”

Luiz Carlos Azenha, from Vi o Mundo (”I've seen the World”), is another eminent journalist who quit his mainstream media job to become a full time blogger. He reflects on the media's interest in this case [Pt]:

“A máquina de moer carne da mídia não pára. Precisa produzir continuamente. E produzir, sempre, algo sexy. Na pior acepção da palavra. Crianças defenestradas, arrastadas por automóveis, vale tudo desde que a morte tenha “valor” de venda. Ou seja, a morte de uma criança por desnutrição, aos poucos, bem diante do prédio da Folha de S. Paulo, na Barão de Limeira, tem valor zero na escala da notícia. Bebês mortos em reservas indígenas e em maternidades já se tornaram parte do trivial.”

“The media's meat-grinding machine never stops. It needs to produce continually. And to produce, always, something sexy — in the worst meaning of the word. Children being thrown through windows, or dragged by automobiles¹, anything goes as long as the death has some ‘market value'. That means that the death of a child by starvation, little by little, right in front of the Folha de S. Paulo's building, in the Barão de Limeira [avenue], has zero value in the news scale. Dead children in indigenous reserves, or in the child-care units, are already part of what is trivial.”

¹ (Translator's note: This is a mention of the João Helio case. Helio was a 6 year-old boy who died after being dragged outside his mother's car for seven miles in a car robbery. The case sparked a wave of demonstrations against the increase of criminality in Rio de Janeiro and calling for harsher penalties in the case of heinous crimes. The week of João Helio's death, another boy died in a similar way in another part of the country. No newspaper noticed it. Only blogs took note of the case, but I couldn't find any mention of it in recent times. It might have not made any difference, but João Hélio was middle-class and white, while the other unnamed victim was poorer, and of darker skin.)

Fortunately the whole issue came, apparently, to a reasonable solution. But many of us, know-it-all as we are, think that's not the whole point. Some say that Chavez should be expelled or ‘neutralized' somehow for being ‘dangerous' to the peace on Latin America. Others say that the US and Uribe, their Colombian host, are the real villains of the Latin soap opera. Among the radical speeches and the media echoing, we could find some very reasonable voices in the Brazilian blogosphere shedding some welcome light on the entire matter.

Andre Deak blogs about an article he wrote to Agência Brasil[PT] back in 2006, about the US military bases at Ecuador and Colombia, titled “Geopolitics of the Siege”, and makes some considerations[PT]…:

“A maior base norte-americana na América Latina, a base de Manta, fica no país governado por Rafael Correa. Presidente que publicamente é contra a política dos EUA para a região, e disse que não renovará o acordo para manter essa base.”

“The biggest North-American military base in Latin America, the Manta base, stands in the country ruled by Rafael Correa. The president that publicly stood against the US policy for the region, and declared that he will not renew the treaty to keep that base.”

… and quotations in his blog post about the conflict and it's unspoken background:

” ‘A partir de 2002, Colin Powell garantiu uma verba adicional de 731 milhões de dólares para financiar a participação do Equador, Bolívia e Peru no Plano Colômbia. O papel do Equador era central, principalmente porque os Estados Unidos utilizavam a estrutura da Base de Manta, com capacidade de controlar o espaço aéreo da região Amazônica, do Canal do Panamá e da América Central. A eleição do presidente Rafael Correa interrompeu o apoio do Equador ao Plano Colômbia, já que uma de suas principais medidas foi anunciar que não renovaria o acordo com os Estados Unidos para o controle da Base de Manta', conta Maria Luisa Mendonça.

[…]

Outra leitura interessante vem do Beto Almeida, no texto Colômbia: Israel sul-americano?: o assassinato de ‘Raul Reyes, conhecido por sua característica de exímio negociador político, também deve ser entendido como um alerta ao governo de Sarkosy para que não se meta em negociações que contrariem a linha estadunidense de militarização da região amazônica'.”

” ‘Since 2002, Colin Powell has guaranteed an additional funding of 731 million US Dollars to pay for the participation of Ecuador, Bolivia and Peru on the Plan Colombia. Ecuador played a central role, mainly because the United States used the resources of the Manta Base, capable of controling the entire Amazon, Panama channel and the Central America's airspace. The election of the president Rafael Correa interrupted the Ecuador support to the Plan Colombia, once one of [the president's] first measures was to announce that the treaty that gave to the US the control of Manta Base was not to be renewed', says Maria Luisa Mendonça. […] Another interesting view [on the situation] comes from Beto Almeida, in his text Colombia: South-American Israel?: ‘the murder of Raul Reyes, known for his caracteristic of being a great political negotiator, may be understood as an alert to the Sarkozy government, that it shouldn't meddle with negotiations that are contrary to the US line of action of militarizing the Amazon region'.”

João Vergilio writes, in an article[PT] sent by Luis Nassif to the blog Projeto.br[PT], about the connection between this crisis and the hipocrisy surrounding War on Drugs and the drug traffic issue:

“Insisto: enquanto não pusermos sobre a mesa a questão do narcotráfico, todas as discussões ficam sem lastro. É em torno do tráfico e da política antidrogas americana que todas as questões desse conflito estão articuladas. Sem essa insana War on Drugs patrocinada pelos EUA, não haveria as Farc, nem Uribe. E Chávez não passaria de um reformador social um pouco voluntarista e desastrado.”

“I insist: until we don't agree on discussing the drug traffic issue, all the other debates become meaningless and unrooted. All the issues on this conflict are wrapped around the drug traffic and the US anti-drugs policy. If it weren't for the insane War on Drugs sponsored by the US, there would be no FARC or Uribe. And Chavez would be nothing more than a somewhat blunderous and a-little-too-willful social reformer.”

In the same article, Hugo Albuquerque is rather pessimistic about the motivations and the resolution of the conflict, and calls our atention to the possible US plans for Colombia in the near future:

“Não creio que a situação acaba por aí.

A Colômbia, que dos anos de 90 pra cá se tornou o cavalo de tróia dos EUA na região, fez essa ação para intimidar a Venezuela, não o Equador.

Isso é o indicativo de que se os EUA tentarem algo contra a Venezuela isso se dará via Colômbia do mesmo modo que o Iraque foi usado nos anos 80 para combater o Irã.”

“I don't believe the situation is really over. Colombia, that in the nineties became the ‘trojan horse‘ of the US in the region, took this line of action to intimidate Venezuela, not Ecuador. That is indicative that if the US will try anything against Venezuela, that would be made using Colombia as a proxy in the same way the Iraq was used [by the US] in the eighties to fight against Iran.”

Pedro Doria considers the complexity of the situation and of the world, and stands in a certain neutrality, criticizing both sides with almost the same severity[PT]:

“Enquanto o mundo anda mais complicado do que jamais foi, esquerda e direita abraçam velhos conceitos. Não importa a evidente violência com que agem as Farc, tampouco o fato de que a sociedade colombiana está exausta delas. Se é uma guerrilha, ainda mais com discurso de esquerda, há de ser bom. Não é. São só golpistas assassinos, torturadores. Uma gente que prende outras por anos a fio. Já passamos desta fase na América Latina. Seria bizarro o suficiente se não houvesse pelo mundo gente à direita que jura combater um comunismo inexistente e que, além de se embaralhar na bandeira religiosa, age com um anti-cientificismo grosseiro.”

“As the world becomes more complex than ever before, left and right embrace old concepts. It's doesn't matter how evidently violent are the FARCs, or how tired have the Colombian society grown of them. If it's a guerrilla and, better yet, a guerilla with a leftist speech, then it must be good. It's not. They're only scheming murderers and torturers. People that kidnap and imprision others for many years long. We're all over this phase in Latin America. That would already be bizarre enough, if there wasn't in this world so many people at the right that swear to God they're fighting a communism that doesn't exist, entangling themselves into religious flags and acting with a gross anti-scientificism.”

Considering that there are no easy, maniqueistic, answers in these times, Doria stands against illegality and power abuse and, thus, views both sides with suspicion:

“Não é difícil ter problemas com Uribe e com Chávez ao mesmo tempo. Basta não achar que qualquer ilegalidade é justificada para combater o outro lado.”

“It's not that hard to have qualms about Chaves and Uribe at the same time. It's just a matter of not thinking that any illegal measure is justified to fight against the other side.”

This is, indeed, a very complex world living very complex times. Although many are still pursuing and repeating easy answers and shallow judgements about the situation, it's becoming clear that we must make a deep reflection before saying anything or taking sides. There is a lot of misinformation trickling along the unnending lines of political lies and media supported babble. I think Andre Deak says it all when he closes his above quoted post remarking that…:

“O momento não pode ser lido apenas pelo que contam os jornais. A primeira vítima desse conflito, como em todos, é a verdade.”

“This moment can't be read only by what the newspapers are saying. The first victim of this conflict, like in any other, is the truth.”

What should we do when we can't be sure about what is happening around us? Maybe the solution is listening to as many voices as possible, be it thunderous and loud like the voices of governments and big media outlets or whispered like the voices of common people, and try to make out who, and why, is trying to fool us. This is as close to the truth we can get. That is why Global Voices Online exists. We're listening. Are you?

Article written in colaboration with José Murilo Junior.