Larry Rohter, foot in mouth
ONE. While we were in college, one of the main issues in student politics was what to do about hate speech. “Hate speech” being verbal harrassment on the basis of a social group — most often race, sexuality, or nationality. The issue was, for example, if Ford O’Connell (the stereotypical campus jock) called someone a “f— faggot", should he be discliplined officially by the college?
There were basically two camps on the issue. One group identified the speech as a form of violence, and as such the offense should be explicitly prohibited (and punishable) by the college. Another group believed the “hate speech” is protected by the basic right to free speech, no matter how offensive, and should not be punishable by the college.
My sociology professor Braulio Muñoz was one of the few with something interesting to say on the subject. First he pointed out that legal sanction was a problematic response. Where do you put the line between insults and hate speech? How do you prove it legally in a situation of one person’s word against another’s? Would the process of ‘criminalizing’ this behavior only generate more discord?
But, Professor Muñoz continued, no legal sanction didn’t mean no sanction at all. He suggested that social sanctions — the way societies naturally deal with offensive speech — were both more plausible and more effective. Social disapproval, both from within and outside the offender’s peer group, could prove a more effective weapon to both deal with offensive speech and prevent it in the first place.
TWO. Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (known popularly as “Lula"), Brazil’s popular left-wing president, has been fighting a losing battle with the markets since even before he was elected. When the financial establishment decided he might win, their “lack of confidence” in the future of the Brazilian economy sent the nation’s currency and stock markets into a downward plunge. Since then, Lula has made every gesture possible to reassure the world financial markets that he is even more orthodox than they are: He selected as his vice president a millionaire textile magnate from a right-wing party. He vowed loyalty to the IMF. He even tried to meet with Henry Kissinger. In the process, he became, as an Argentine commentator recently noted, “the most pampered leftist in the world of the rich”.
For all his orthodoxy — surprising for a man who would more likely whistle L’Internationale than the Star Spangled Banner — the best he could do was make sure things didn’t get worse. Though markets and the Brazilian currency (the real) stabilized and the interest rate premium Brazil was paying on its debt lowered to 4%, the real economy was stagnant last year. Lula’s hope that in the short term, he could win confidence in the markets with unpopular policies — and more suffering — became more of a long shot as the country refused to come clearly out of recession.
Beyond struggles with the economy, he did find success in the international arena. Named one of the 100 most influential people on earth by Time Magazine, he has helped anchor a block of leftist presidents on the Atlantic Coast (Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina, and sometimes Chile), and is recognized for his contribution in derailing trade agreements pushed by the US. Among Brazilians, he has about a 60% approval rating.
THREE. Today’s international financial markets are a curious phenomenon. Common sense would have it that they behave in a somewhat rational manner, anchored in the real economies of real nations. Unfortunately, their connection to the world’s productive economy is tenuous at best, and far from being rational, investors behave more like gamblers in a casino, a dangerous herd mentality moving tens of millions of dollars in minutes.
One consequence of the volatilty of the system, combined with high national debt burdens, is that even the possibility of a small change in the U.S. interest rates can have drastic effects on “emerging market” (aka third-world) countries. One Friday this past May, there was an indication that the U.S central bank (the “Fed") was going to raise interest rates earlier than expected. I won’t bore you with the details; the short story is that this set off warning lights in markets worldwide. In in South America, where Brazil’s financial situation had been looking shaky for some time, there was a looming fear that the interest rate hike could lead to a Brazilian financial default and possible collapse.
FOUR. So that Sunday, as everyone down here waited to see what happened to the Brazilian markets, a curious coincidence occured. An article about Lula came out in the New York Times.
The article, with the headline “Brazilian Leader’s Tippling Becomes National Concern", looks like something that should have come out in a tabloid, not one of the nation’s most respected papers. The only actual source quoted in the article is Lula’s sworn political enemy, Leonel Brizola, who only goes as far as saying, “according to what is said, [Lula] continues to drink.” The rest is hearsay. No, worse: reports of hearsay.
After mentioning the president’s perported reputation as a heavy drinker, the article details a few of his slips of the tongue — which, besides being shoddy evidence for a drinking problem, are nothing alongside similar gaffes by a certain North American president. The author is also careful to mention that the president only finished the sixth grade, and that his father is rumored to have been an alcoholic.
It’s important to note, not just that the New York Times published a tabloid-style trashing of the president of our hemisphere’s second most important country, but that they did it the day before markets opened on probably the most sensitive day of Lula’s presidency. An unhappy coincidence?
The same day the article came out, Lula’s government responded by lashing out angrily against Mr. Rohter — and suspended his visa, basically expelling him from the country. This did not win Lula friends among journalists, needless to say, and let everyone from the New York Times to his own Brazilian critics call his government, “anti-democratic.”
FIVE. The question of what Brazil should have done about Mr. Rohter’s little indescretion, I think, could be viewed in the same light as Professor Muñoz viewed hate speech. Legally sanctioning Mr. Rohter seems to have been a bad idea — besides the new ammunition given to Lula critics, the Times is known to hold a grudge.
But Lula has an advantage that he maybe didn’t realize. Here in Buenos Aires, every one of my friends backed Lula’s action one-hundred percent. It’ll teach Rohter and the NYT a lesson, they’d say. I’d bet that if you added all the Argentines and the Brailians who were disgusted at what Mr. Rohter said, you’d come up with a veritable army of pissed-off citizens in the two main countries where Rohter has to work.
So, President Lula, this is my idea. Since going after Mr. Rohter with the law didn’t work, with all the “free-speech” criticism and whatnot, how about using some social sanctions? I’m sure, if called upon, enough indignant Brazilians and Argentines could make Mr. Rohter’s life unpleasant enough that he wouldn’t dare repeat a similar attack. Personally, if I crossed paths with Mr. Rohter, I’d be happy to give him more than just a tounge-lashing.
FOOTNOTE. I wrote this in May, the week everything was happening, but just am getting around to finishing it up. Adding a couple interesting facts:
That Monday (May 15, just after the article was published), the Brazilian stock market fell 5.5%. The dollar real rose 8 centavos to 3.14 reales per dollar. The market in Argentina, which claims Brazil as its biggest trading partner, fell 8.4%. The Mexican peso hit its lowest level of the entire presidency of Vincente Fox.
I should have also said that Larry Rohter, the Times’ southern cone reporter, is understood among many as probably the worst excuse for a professional reporter they’ve ever read. His grasp of political and economic issues is frighteningly shallow, and the fact that he is the primary source of information on a number of countries (Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia) for a good section of the American newspaper-reading population makes his shortcomings even more grave.
Brazil reinstated Larry Rohter’s visa that Friday. Mr. Rohter written only two full-length articles in the New York Times in the two months since the incident.
Related links
There were basically two camps on the issue. One group identified the speech as a form of violence, and as such the offense should be explicitly prohibited (and punishable) by the college. Another group believed the “hate speech” is protected by the basic right to free speech, no matter how offensive, and should not be punishable by the college.
My sociology professor Braulio Muñoz was one of the few with something interesting to say on the subject. First he pointed out that legal sanction was a problematic response. Where do you put the line between insults and hate speech? How do you prove it legally in a situation of one person’s word against another’s? Would the process of ‘criminalizing’ this behavior only generate more discord?
But, Professor Muñoz continued, no legal sanction didn’t mean no sanction at all. He suggested that social sanctions — the way societies naturally deal with offensive speech — were both more plausible and more effective. Social disapproval, both from within and outside the offender’s peer group, could prove a more effective weapon to both deal with offensive speech and prevent it in the first place.
TWO. Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (known popularly as “Lula"), Brazil’s popular left-wing president, has been fighting a losing battle with the markets since even before he was elected. When the financial establishment decided he might win, their “lack of confidence” in the future of the Brazilian economy sent the nation’s currency and stock markets into a downward plunge. Since then, Lula has made every gesture possible to reassure the world financial markets that he is even more orthodox than they are: He selected as his vice president a millionaire textile magnate from a right-wing party. He vowed loyalty to the IMF. He even tried to meet with Henry Kissinger. In the process, he became, as an Argentine commentator recently noted, “the most pampered leftist in the world of the rich”.
Beyond struggles with the economy, he did find success in the international arena. Named one of the 100 most influential people on earth by Time Magazine, he has helped anchor a block of leftist presidents on the Atlantic Coast (Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina, and sometimes Chile), and is recognized for his contribution in derailing trade agreements pushed by the US. Among Brazilians, he has about a 60% approval rating.
THREE. Today’s international financial markets are a curious phenomenon. Common sense would have it that they behave in a somewhat rational manner, anchored in the real economies of real nations. Unfortunately, their connection to the world’s productive economy is tenuous at best, and far from being rational, investors behave more like gamblers in a casino, a dangerous herd mentality moving tens of millions of dollars in minutes.
One consequence of the volatilty of the system, combined with high national debt burdens, is that even the possibility of a small change in the U.S. interest rates can have drastic effects on “emerging market” (aka third-world) countries. One Friday this past May, there was an indication that the U.S central bank (the “Fed") was going to raise interest rates earlier than expected. I won’t bore you with the details; the short story is that this set off warning lights in markets worldwide. In in South America, where Brazil’s financial situation had been looking shaky for some time, there was a looming fear that the interest rate hike could lead to a Brazilian financial default and possible collapse.
FOUR. So that Sunday, as everyone down here waited to see what happened to the Brazilian markets, a curious coincidence occured. An article about Lula came out in the New York Times.
The article, with the headline “Brazilian Leader’s Tippling Becomes National Concern", looks like something that should have come out in a tabloid, not one of the nation’s most respected papers. The only actual source quoted in the article is Lula’s sworn political enemy, Leonel Brizola, who only goes as far as saying, “according to what is said, [Lula] continues to drink.” The rest is hearsay. No, worse: reports of hearsay.
After mentioning the president’s perported reputation as a heavy drinker, the article details a few of his slips of the tongue — which, besides being shoddy evidence for a drinking problem, are nothing alongside similar gaffes by a certain North American president. The author is also careful to mention that the president only finished the sixth grade, and that his father is rumored to have been an alcoholic.
It’s important to note, not just that the New York Times published a tabloid-style trashing of the president of our hemisphere’s second most important country, but that they did it the day before markets opened on probably the most sensitive day of Lula’s presidency. An unhappy coincidence?
The same day the article came out, Lula’s government responded by lashing out angrily against Mr. Rohter — and suspended his visa, basically expelling him from the country. This did not win Lula friends among journalists, needless to say, and let everyone from the New York Times to his own Brazilian critics call his government, “anti-democratic.”
FIVE. The question of what Brazil should have done about Mr. Rohter’s little indescretion, I think, could be viewed in the same light as Professor Muñoz viewed hate speech. Legally sanctioning Mr. Rohter seems to have been a bad idea — besides the new ammunition given to Lula critics, the Times is known to hold a grudge.
But Lula has an advantage that he maybe didn’t realize. Here in Buenos Aires, every one of my friends backed Lula’s action one-hundred percent. It’ll teach Rohter and the NYT a lesson, they’d say. I’d bet that if you added all the Argentines and the Brailians who were disgusted at what Mr. Rohter said, you’d come up with a veritable army of pissed-off citizens in the two main countries where Rohter has to work.
So, President Lula, this is my idea. Since going after Mr. Rohter with the law didn’t work, with all the “free-speech” criticism and whatnot, how about using some social sanctions? I’m sure, if called upon, enough indignant Brazilians and Argentines could make Mr. Rohter’s life unpleasant enough that he wouldn’t dare repeat a similar attack. Personally, if I crossed paths with Mr. Rohter, I’d be happy to give him more than just a tounge-lashing.
FOOTNOTE. I wrote this in May, the week everything was happening, but just am getting around to finishing it up. Adding a couple interesting facts:
That Monday (May 15, just after the article was published), the Brazilian stock market fell 5.5%. The dollar real rose 8 centavos to 3.14 reales per dollar. The market in Argentina, which claims Brazil as its biggest trading partner, fell 8.4%. The Mexican peso hit its lowest level of the entire presidency of Vincente Fox.
I should have also said that Larry Rohter, the Times’ southern cone reporter, is understood among many as probably the worst excuse for a professional reporter they’ve ever read. His grasp of political and economic issues is frighteningly shallow, and the fact that he is the primary source of information on a number of countries (Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia) for a good section of the American newspaper-reading population makes his shortcomings even more grave.
Brazil reinstated Larry Rohter’s visa that Friday. Mr. Rohter written only two full-length articles in the New York Times in the two months since the incident.
Related links
Brazil United Against NY Times
NY Times Affair: Brazil in a Major Hangover
Original NYT Article by Larry Rohter
NYT Article: Brazil reinstates visa
Lula a perder: Terrific Pagina/12 article on Lula’s handling of the economy.
previously there was Land of the free?
afterwards you have wrong side of the wall
The support for Mr. Rohter after Brazil's threat was impressive. A Lexis search of articles with the words “Larry Rohter” published in the last 2 years comes up with 484 articles, around 140 of which are non-NYT articles published since May, documenting Brazil's “attack on press freedom.” [submitted on 11 Jul 04]
what i meant was, and i think i made this clearer in the spanish than in the english translation (where I said something about being less than presidential), was just that I would be harsher on Mr. Rohter than Lula or any public functionary could be. (I think I already succeeded.)
I was not, in case it appeared as such, implying in any way that violence should be directed towards Mr. Rohter.
The fascinating culture of ‘escrache’ that developed in Argentina as a public repudiation towards individuals who had been active in the dictatorship is a good example of what I'm talking about. The fact that Domingo Cavallo (to pick an object of past commentary) can be a professor at Harvard but because of public rejection can't live a normal life back in Argentina, hopefully gives pause to future economy ministers when desiging policies. [submitted on 12 Jul 04]
SEGUNDO: esta es una demostración de cómo la prensa se ha transformado en un poder transnacional que con la globalización ha logrado magnificar su impacto,ante lo cual cabe preguntarse si esto es bueno o no; ya que como hemos visto, hoy en día las guerras se ganan por televisión antes que en el terreno donde se desarrollan los hechos.
TERCERO: Lula es bien conocido en brasil por su trayectoria como obrero, por los años de trabajo en política a la par de su gente, esta vez es el presidente pero tuvo varias campañas antes de serlo con su partido el PT ( Partido dos Travalhadores ) y no es casualidad que hoy sea el presidente del Brasil.Es triste que su imagen sea opacada por comentarios irresponsables de un periodista de dudosa integridad.
CUARTO: el discurso discriminatorio( “hate speech” podría evitarse si las personas adoptan la actitud de hacerlo ver a los que lo efectúan ( adhiero a las ideas de David y Jeremy).
QUINTO: Como dice el biblico refrán: “ no mires la paja en el ojo ajeno sinó la viga en el propio”.
Larry Rohter seguramente no es muy bueno con las analogías y comparaciones, porque tal vez si mira a su propio país se de cuenta que antes de tildar de alcohólico a Lula debería mirar a su propio presidente quien tiene sobrados antecedentes.
Sexto: uno se cansa de ver cómo sistemáticamente atacan desde diferentes flancos a las economías emergentes de países que quieren progresar como los nuestros, es un plan programatico orquestado, estas cosas no son casuales ( no comemos vidrio ).
Septimo: James Tobin ( premio nobel de economía ) propuso un impuesto para evitar la migracion rápida de capitales de un país a otro, este fue llamado el “ impuesto Tobin”, un teoría sumamente interesante que evitaría los desplazamientos de capitales “ en estampida”, que tan mal le hacen a nuestra america latina devaluando nuestras monedas y deprimiendo nuestras economías. [submitted on 20 Jul 04]
HAVE OFFERED TO CLEAN UP TUCURUI, AT NO COST, BY EXTRACTING ALL THE LOGS, TREES AND DEBIT FROM ITS BOTTOM.
AT FIRST THE ELECTRIC COMPANY WAS VERY RECEPTIVE. THEY TOLD US, THEY WOULD EXPECT, ONE DAY, THE DEBIT WOULD FIND ITS WAY INTO THE GENERATORS AND SHUT THE PLACE DOWN, CAUSING MOST OF NORTHERN BRASIL, TO BE OUT OF ELECTRICITY OR WORSE. A JAM, WITH-IN THE DAM WOULD CAUSE THE DAM TO BACK UP, CAUSING TOO MUCH PRESSURE FOR THE DAM TO HANDLE. POOR CONSTRUCTION, CAUSED BY SCIMMING MONEY, OUT OF ITS CONSTUCTION, COULD CAUSE THE DAM TO RUPTURE, THUS FLOODING EVERYTHING IN IT'S PATH ALL THE WAY TO THE ATLANTIC.
WE HAVE INFORMED THE FEDERAL ELETRIC COMPANY, WE ARE CAPABLE OF EXTRATING THE TREES, DOWN TO THEIR ROOT STRUCTURE AND REMOVING THEM, IN THEIR ENTIRETY, UNLIKE WHAT THEY HAVE BEN DOING OVER THE PAST TWO DECADES. THEY HAVE CUTTING THE TOP TEN FEET (CANOPY) OFF THE TREES AND LETTING THEM DROP TO THE BOTTOM OF THE DAM. THEY THEN CUT THE NEXT 25 TO 30 FEET FOR LUMBER AND LEAVE THE REST OF THE TREE, IN THE RIVER, AS THEY DON'T HAVE THE MEANS OR ABILITY TO GET IT OUT. WE DO HAVE THE ABILITY AND MEANS TO EXTRACT ALL THE DEBIT AND STAND READY, AT NO COST TO THE FEDERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY. THE ONLY THING WE WANT, IS ALL THE SALVAGE WE EXTRACT. THEY NOW WANT US TO PAY THE DAM AUTHORITY, UNDISCLOSED AMOUNTS OF MONEY, JUST TO COMMENCE NEGOCIATIONS.
WE STAND READY TO DISCLOSE OUR METHOD OF EXTRACTION AND FUNDING, UNDER PROPER CIRCUMSTANCES. [submitted on 09 Sep 04]
Stop being such an idiots.
Read more.
PS: i don´t appreciate Lula´s work. [submitted on 28 Jan 05]
Please email me at: bsg218@nyu.edu
Thank you
Benjamin [submitted on 13 Mar 07]