In a Folha column, professor Wilson Gomes criticizes the left for defending Justice Alexandre de Moraes by attacking journalism and journalist Malu Gaspar's reputation amid allegations of improper conduct at the STF. He argues this strategy is ineffective and harmful to democracy. Gomes points out the accumulation of facts requiring public clarification.
Columnist Wilson Gomes, a full professor at the Federal University of Bahia (UFBA), published an analysis in Folha de S.Paulo on the debate surrounding journalistic allegations involving Supreme Federal Court (STF) justices, particularly Alexandre de Moraes. Reports led by Malu Gaspar uncover contracts, phone contacts, and sensitive professional ties suggesting improper conduct or explanatory omissions. Gomes stresses that these elements, when accumulated, form a picture demanding rigorous scrutiny, regardless of political interpretations.
The left's response, per Gomes, focused on discrediting the journalist rather than challenging the facts. Claims that Gaspar lied, is a 'Lava Jato supporter,' or pursues a coup agenda lack factual demonstration, rendering them intellectually weak. The columnist has a solid reputation without a history of partisanship, and attacking her credibility without proof merely exposes the critics.
This aggressive defense of Moraes, suddenly embraced by the left, may undermine the justice's appearance of impartiality, vital for a constitutional judge. Gomes warns that treating attacks on journalists as a legitimate tactic equates the left with the bolsonarista far-right, which employs similar methods. Moreover, investigative journalism, using protected sources and persistent reporting, was key in exposing scandals like the secret budget, Bolsonaro clan kickbacks, and Lava Jato frauds.
Ultimately, Gomes concludes that this approach turns a potential scandal into a problem for the left, the STF, and Brazilian democracy, proving counterproductive on all fronts.
