Journalism Studies

ISSN: 1461-670X (Print) 1469-9699 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjos20

Journalism and Multiple Modernities: The Folha de

S. Paulo Reform in Brazil

Afonso de Albuquerque

To cite this article: Afonso de Albuquerque (2018): Journalism and Multiple Modernities: The
Folha�de�S.�Paulo Reform in Brazil, Journalism Studies, DOI: 10.1080/1461670X.2018.1528881

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2018.1528881

Published online: 03 Oct 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjos20
JOURNALISM STUDIES
https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2018.1528881

Journalism and Multiple Modernities: The Folha de S. Paulo

Reform in Brazil
Afonso de Albuquerque
Department of Cultural Studies and Media, Fluminense Federal University, Niterói, Brazil

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
The reform of the Brazilian newspaper Folha de S. Paulo in the 1980s Journalism; Brazil; Folha
has been often presented by scholars and the reformers themselves de S. Paulo; modernization;
as an example of a process of journalism modernization inspired by multiples modernities;
fourth estate; neoliberalism;
the US Fourth Estate model. However, a close examination of
leninism
documents publicized by Folha and members of the management
team ahead of the reform suggests that other elements –
associated to a Neoliberal and a Leninist view of journalism –
performed a role as important as the Fourth Estate as sources of
the newspaper’s model of journalism. Contrary to the
conventional knowledge, this article suggests that the core reason
behind of reform was the perception, shared by Folha’s managers
that they have lost control over the newsroom, and their
consequent effort in restoring their authority, rather than merely
emulating a foreign model. It is argued that a better
understanding of journalism modernization in non-western
societies requires going beyond the usual model adoption and
model adaptation approaches and exploring a multiple
modernities perspective.

The analysis of its guidebook and the scholarly literature focusing on Folha de S. Paulo
provides solid evidence of a conscious, non-accidental influence of the American model on
Brazilian journalism. (Lins da Silva 1991, 86–87)

The US/UK Fourth Estate models of journalism – or some core characteristics associated to
it, as for instance “objectivity”, “impartiality”, “informative”, or the “watchdog” journalism –
have served as a normative model for societies existing beyond the western world. This
happens both in scientific research and journalistic practice. Academic literature often
evaluates journalism existing in other societies with basis in its greater or lesser resem-
blance to the Fourth Estate model (Josephi 2013; Zelizer 2018): Chalaby (1996), for
instance, argues that journalism is an Anglo-American invention, and Carey (2007) sustains
it is possible only in democratic societies. On the other hand, journalists working in non-
western societies have repeatedly referred to the Fourth Estate model as a means for jus-
tifying their current practices or the necessity of changing them (Mellado et al. 2012).
The citation opening this article illustrates both cases at once. A faculty member of the
department of Journalism at Universidade de São Paulo (São Paulo University, hereafter
USP), Carlos Eduardo Lins da Silva was the second-in-command during the journalistic

CONTACT Afonso de Albuquerque afonsoal@uol.com.br

© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 A. DE ALBUQUERQUE

reform of Folha de S. Paulo (hereafter Folha) in the 1980s, when it experienced a major jour-
nalistic reform. He has also elaborated a version about the reform’s meaning, which sus-
tains that the adoption of a radical market-approach by Folha was the core factor
allowing it to exert a politically independent journalism (Lins da Silva 1991). This version
earned a large acceptation in the academic milieu and helped to promote the notion of
Folha’s reform as a blueprint example of how to build more active, independent journal-
ism, consistent with the Fourth Estate model in Brazil (Herscovitz 2004; Matos 2008; Wais-
bord 2000). As seductive as this account may be, there are reasons to believe it does not
cover all the relevant angles of the problems it aims to describe: (1) it is basically a first-
person view about the events; (2) in a great measure it corresponds to the rationale pre-
sented by the newspaper itself (Folha 1984a, 1987) and key members of its editorial team
who played a leading role in the reforming process (Costa 1991; Frias Filho 1984, 2003).
Therefore, it must be taken as an idealized view, rather than a factual description, of the
events and their meaning.
Bearing this in mind, this article explores some aspects of the mainstream account
about Folha’s reform that deviate from the classic Fourth Estate rhetoric. Two elements
are particularly relevant here. The first one refers to a Neoliberal definition of journalism,
which establishes that readers purchasing newspaper copies constitutes the core funda-
ment of the journalistic authority and, in consequence, associate it to the newspaper
understood as a business organization, rather than the work of journalists. The other con-
cerns the presence of elements that allude to a Leninist view of journalism and politics, as
for instance the proposition that Folha had a political project (Arbex 2001; Lins da Silva
1988), and associate it to a specific social class – in this case the upper and middle
classes – whose views are supposed to correspond to the interests of the society in
general.
From the viewpoint of the binary thinking originated during the Cold War era, this kind
of arrangement surely seems puzzling, since the Soviet Communism was defined as the
exact opposite of Liberalism (Krylova 2000; Szpunar 2012; Viola 2002). From the peripheral
societies’ perspective, however, Liberalism and Communism refer to a same basic project –
modernization – although defining it in different terms (Rogers 1976; Roudakova 2017). It
is argued that the perspective of multiple modernities – which assumes “the existence of
culturally specific forms of modernity shaped by distinct cultural heritages and sociopoli-
tical conditions” (Eisenstadt, Riedel, and Sachsenmaier 2002, 1) – may provide some clues
on this regard.
This article is organized as follows. First, a historical background of Folha in the 1980s is
briefly presented. Then, the mainstream account about Folha’s reform is problematized,
with basis on evidences linking it to an active effort made by Folha Organizations in pro-
viding academic legitimacy to its ow corporate discourse. The third section examines the
Neoliberal and Leninist premises that are lying underneath the mainstream accounts
about the reform; finally, these discourses are discussed in light of the multiple moder-
nities theory and how it applies to peripheral societies, as for instance Brazil.

The Historical Background of Folha’s 1980s Reform

Founded in 1921, Folha remained for decades a relatively unimportant newspaper, not
particularly committed to democracy. In 1964, it supported the military coup that
 JOURNALISM STUDIES 3

originated a two-decade long dictatorship, and sustained an acquiescent, “low profile” atti-
tude almost to the end (Mota and Capelato 1981). In the mid-1970s, Folha essayed a more
active voice, in the wake of the political overture policies promoted by President Ernesto
Geisel, but its commitment with journalistic independence was still vacillating (e.g., Perosa
2004). The turning point occurred in 1983–1984, when Folha engaged enthusiastically with
the Diretas-Já campaign – a political movement that led huge crowds to the streets in
major Brazilian cities to demand a constitutional amendment reestablishing direct elec-
tions for Presidency (Matos 2008). Although the proposal was defeated, the massive
public rallies helped to put an end to the military regime in 1985. Thanks to the role it
played in the last phase of transition towards democracy, Folha earned a considerable pol-
itical prestige in the following years.
By that time, Folha faced a growing agitation since the mid-1970s, exerted mostly by
journalists associated to the São Paulo State’s Journalism Union, which perceived the pro-
prietors of newspapers as exerting an “economic censorship” was even worse than those
imposed by the military regime (Smith 1997). In 1979, São Paulo journalists went on strike,
requiring not only better salaries, but also more professional autonomy for the journalists
working in the newsrooms with reference to their bosses. The strike ended with a bitter
defeat for the journalists and, at the same time, it ranged an alarm for newspaper
owners about their ability to keep control over the newsrooms (Roxo 2013). Tensions
soared again after the Diretas-Já campaign, as journalists raised demands about playing
a more active role in the new democratic order to come. Folha’s editor-in-chief Otávio
Frias Filho described the situation in a very dramatic manner: “there was a kind of pre-revo-
lutionary atmosphere. I really thought I was going to become a kind of Kerensky there1”
(2003, 360).
Reacting to this perceived menace, Folha’s managers adopted measures that even Frias
Filho described as “draconian”: “We sacked many [journalists] for political reasons. In a
timespan of few months, in the beginning of 1985, I guess there must have been
around 50 dismissals” (Frias Filho 2003, 361). At the same time, Folha implemented
measures aiming to curb the journalists’ professional autonomy even more than in the
past. They were supposed to follow a series of detailed rules, systematized in the newspa-
per’s stylebook (Manual de Redação da Folha de S. Paulo, hereafter Manual) – for instance,
there is a specific, very detailed entry for the coverage of strikes.2 Folha also established
periodical evaluations to test their conformity to it. In June 1984, the newspaper ruled
that journalists should manifest their explicit agreement with the Folha Project in order
to be hired (Lins da Silva 1988). All in all, this suggests that following a foreign model
was not the sole purpose behind the reforms’ intent; it was also a matter of power, an
effort made by the management to retake full control of its newsroom.

Mythologizing Folha’s History?

A particularly notable aspect of Folha’s history refers to the fact it has been told mostly
from the first-person point of view of interested agents who performed a leading role
in it, and additionally it has been actively promoted by the Folha Group. For this motive
it is very difficult to distinguish history from self-interested mythology. The basilar stone
of this effort is the book História da Folha de S. Paulo (1921–1981), written by Carlos Guil-
herme Mota and Maria Helena Capelato, both History professors at USP, produced to
4 A. DE ALBUQUERQUE

commemorate the newspaper’s 60 years of existence and launching the basis for a new
editorial project, which aimed to repositioning Folha as a first-class, politically relevant
newspaper in Brazil.
The definitive version of this mythology was provided by Lins da Silva. In 1984, he was
invited by Frias Filho to be his second-in-command, with the mission of helping the
implementation of a major reform in Folha. Back to USP, in 1987 Lins da Silva took his per-
sonal experience in Folha as the basis for writing a full-professor thesis, published one year
later as a book under the title Mil dias: os bastidores da revolução em um grande jornal (A
thousand days: the background of the revolution in a big newspaper). Lins da Silva’s argu-
ments resemble those made public by the newspaper itself in a series of documents
explaining its editorial project (Folha 1981, 1984a, 1984b, 1985, 1986, 1987), since he pre-
sented that the reform intended to replace an opinion-based model of journalism for an
informative one, industrializing news making, establishing rigid quality control of news
making, and subordinating journalism to a business logic. The book’s alignment with
the management view of the process is evidenced by the fact it quotes Frias Filho more
than twenty times, often in an authoritative manner, at the same time it dismisses sum-
marily the views of the reform’s opposers, as for instance: “objective facts demonstrate
that the [Journalists] Union’s evaluation is wrong” (1988, 58).
This view was further developed in other works, as Lins da Silva’s O adiantado da hora
(1991), and Caio Tulio Costa’s O relógio de Pascal (1991), which describes his experiences as
Folha’s first Ombudsman. Additionally, Folha Group’s publishing house – originally called
Impres, and later Publifolha – published several works (Lins da Silva 2005; Mota and Cape-
lato 1981; Singer et al. 2003), whose views were compatible with its corporate mythology.
A subsidiary role was presented by the different versions of Folha’s Manual (1984, 1987,
1992, 2001), which, more than just present technical rules for journalists, was a public
manifesto (the circulation of the Manual was not restricted to Folha’s newsroom; rather,
it was sold to the readers in general3) presenting its institutional rationale about the
ethical and political foundations of journalism.

The Discoursive Sources of Folha’s Reform

The success of Folha’s institutional effort became evident as the international literature
describes its reform as an example of the US influence in Brazilian journalism (Herscovitz
2004), and echoed its basic premise that market strength was a prerequisite to allow it to
exercise a Fourth Estate role (Matos 2008; Waisbord 2000). Nevertheless, a closer examin-
ation of Folha’s discourse about the reform reveals the presence of elements other than
the Fourth Estate model, which seems closer to a Neoliberal view about journalism and
politics, and other resemble the Leninism view on this regard.

Towards the US Journalism Model?

According to Lins da Silva, the perception of a historical gap existing between journalism
in Brazilian and the United States was a core motive for Folha’s reform. Despite its title,
however, his book O adiantado da hora: a influência americana sobre o jornalismo brasileiro
(The early hour: American influence on Brazilian journalism) explores the factors preventing
Brazilian journalism to became closer to the US one. According to him, contrary to that
 JOURNALISM STUDIES 5

happens in the United States, whose journalists both belief in the objectivity values and try
hard to put them in practice, in Brazil “everyone claims to be objective, but almost no one
really is”. (Lins da Silva 1991, 101).
Lins da Silva and Folha were not the first to propose the US journalism as a model for
Brazil, however. Three decades earlier, Danton Jobim – one of the leaders of a reform
aiming to modernize Rio de Janeiro’s Diário Carioca newspaper in the 1950s – advocated
a similar agenda. Jobim (1954) also recognized the difficulties inherent to this task, due to
Brazilians’ “passionate character”, which led journalists to reject the objectivity norm. Lins
da Silva (1992) hailed Jobim as his mentor and took the Diário Carioca’s reform in the
1950s as an early model for Folha’s, given its pioneer effort in adopting practices
related to the objectivity norm. Nonetheless, differently from Folha, Diário Carioca
lacked the financial wholeness necessary to allow it to adopt objectivity practices consist-
ently. This seems to be a core motive why Folha emphasized questions relative to the
method – how to build a Fourth Estate – instead of principles and values. However, it is
worth to question if the emphasis in the market as the foundation of journalistic indepen-
dence is a tactical means to construct a Fourth Estate, or it configures the elements of an
alternative model to it.

The Neoliberal Foundations of Folha’s Discourse

One of the most remarkable elements aspects of Folha’s rhetoric is the consistent manner
it appeals to Neoliberal principles in its rationale about the nature of journalism (Arbex
2001; Kucinski 1998; Novelli 2002). Although claiming to promote a return to the basic
values of Liberalism (which provides the basis for the Fourth Estate model), in practical
terms they differ entirely: as Classic Liberalism has the individual freedom as its core
value (from which, market freedom derivates), the main concern of Neoliberalism is
about fostering the conditions for a solid market economy. Besides, Neoliberalism con-
tends that the rules of the market provide a model for all the other social institutions
(Brown 2005; Harvey 2005). The editorial changes promoted by the USA Today in 1982
provided a concrete model to Folha on this respect (Lins da Silva 1992). However, Folha
goes beyond this model, as it proposes that the market logic provides the basis of the
newspaper’s journalistic (and political) authority:
In market societies, each reader attributes to the newspaper that he buys (either by subscrib-
ing to it or buying individual copies) the duty of investigating the facts, gathering journalistic
data, editing and publishing it. If the newspaper does not satisfy his demand, the reader may
suspend this mandate, by terminating the subscription contract or stopping the habit of
buying copies in retail posts.

The strength of a newspaper lies in the solidity and the amount of mandate that the readers
delegates to it. (Folha 1984a, 58)

Here, the core idea is that the commercial relationship between the newspaper and
its readers is also a political one. By buying its copies, readers attribute to Folha a
mandate for speaking on their behalf. Lins da Silva (1991) reinforces this idea by refer-
ring to Folha’s readers in their whole as leitorado (readership), a word that, in Portu-
guese, sounds alike to eleitorado (electorate). A similar logic is used in Folha’s
definition of independence:
6 A. DE ALBUQUERQUE

The economic and financial independence of the newspaper company is the essential con-
dition for the editorial and political autonomy of the newspaper that it publishes. There is
no critical journalism or independence in newspapers edited by companies that depend
directly or indirectly on government, private economic groups or political parties

The security of Folha’s editorial project depends on the economic and financial independence
of Folha da Manhã Organization. (Folha 1984, 51)

In both cases, market logic is the only parameter employed to define Folha’s commit-
ment with core journalistic values – and this is the reason why this conception is presented
here as being fundamentally Neoliberal. In this view, journalism is primarily a commercial
product, evaluated on its business value, rather than to journalists, their practices and pro-
fessional values.

The Leninist Factor

[Frias Filho] believed that the paper had its own ideological project, which provided to its
management the right to demand unconditional loyalty of journalists who held “positions
of trust” (editorial secretaries, editors, sub-editors, and special reporters). It was up to this
“elite corps” to implement the project on a daily basis. Any resemblance of this to the oper-
ation of a centralized party is not a coincidence. (Arbex 2001, 151)

An especially puzzling aspect of Folha’s version about its reform process is the presence
of some elements that allude to the Leninist view of journalism and politics. Journalism
had a prime role in Lenin’s political strategy. More than merely a tool for propaganda
and agitation, Lenin perceived the newspaper as a collective organizer, allowing local pol-
itical agents to engage into a national network that “will form the skeleton of precisely the
kind of organization we need” (1961, 23). Echoes from the Leninist view of journalism may
be found in many aspects of the mainstream discourse about Folha’s reforming process,
although in an implicit manner, and stripped from the original revolutionary and
working-class perspective.
To start with, Folha’s reformers presented the newspaper in terms analogue to those
used for describing a political party. It has a political project on its own right, and its
mission includes “affecting the opinions being discussed in society and, supported by
objective facts and data, changing beliefs and habits, and influencing the pathway of
public and private institutions” (Folha 1984, 42). In Folha’s view, the public opinion does
not correspond to the voice of the people in general, but only to the elites (the upper
and middle classes) those agents “who interfere on social, economic, cultural and political
life” (Folha 1984, 42).
These classes constitute “the diffusion core of ideologies, the midpoint of the demo-
cratic regime aspired, the watershed, the center of gravity of the new ‘civil society’”
(Mota and Capelato 1981, 235). As it happens to the Marxist-Leninist tradition, Folha
defines itself as a group with a political mission, committed with the promotion of
social changes, but does this as the avant-garde of a given social class – the proletariat
in one case, the upper and middle classes in the other – whose views correspond to
the best interests of society in their whole.
In practical terms, this sense of a mission has different consequences for the manage-
ment and the journalists. In 1978, the newspaper created an Editorial Council (EC), whose
 JOURNALISM STUDIES 7

features seem more alike to a political bureau than to a business management team. In its
very first meeting, the Council established a political agenda for the newspaper, including
topics as ameliorating people’s living standards, supporting democracy and freedom of
expression, defending private propriety, and preserving Brazil’s national culture (Mota
and Capelato 1981). Supplementary evidences of the political character of this group
arise from the fact that the Manual attributes the Council with a responsibility in declaring
the newspaper in a state of civil disobedience, in exceptional circumstances (Folha 1984,
55). Otherwise, from the viewpoint of Folha’s journalists, the logic of a mission brings no
bonuses, as it requires from them a kind of commitment that goes far beyond their regular
professional obligations. The entry “Out of duty” of the Manual is exemplar on this respect:
Even when he is out of duty, the journalist is invested by a mandate, which is delegated to him
by the newspaper, and to the newspaper by the readers. In the case of knowing about a fact
with journalistic interest, he must inform the newspaper immediately about it; if he testifies
some threat or rights violation, he must intervene, by announcing himself as a journalist.
(1984, 42)

While this kind of rhetoric finds no shelter in the Liberal or Neoliberal views of journalism, it
makes sense in the light of the longstanding influence that communists exerted on Brazi-
lian newsrooms since the 1950s. Not only were there many communists in the newsrooms,
but they often were respected by the newspapers owners and editors (Abreu 2017; Roxo
2012). According to Claudio Abramo, who worked as Folha’s editor-in-chief from 1965 to
1977, the communists were the most disciplined and rational journalists in the news-
rooms: “their behavior is exemplary, from the viewpoint of the newspaper” (1988, 169).
Bearing this in mind, it is not surprising that some elements of the Leninist ethos – as
the spirit of self-discipline and sacrifice for the mission – came to exert some influence
on the manner how Brazilian journalists conceived their profession. Lins da Silva acknowl-
edges this influence when, referring to journalistic objectivity he argues that the Manual
does not defend it in a manner similar to the traditional US one “because, among other
reasons, their authors have read and absorbed the Marxist criticism against it” (1988, 100).

Making Sense of the Mainstream Account About Folha’s Reform

Evidences suggest that the model of journalism promoted by Folha’s reform was substan-
tially different from that existing in the US, which it supposedly strived to emulate. Why did
this happen? A previous step in order to answer this question is necessary: a brief discus-
sion on the concepts of modernity and modernization. After this, three analytical alterna-
tives in dealing with this problem are explored. The model adoption approach takes
models as subjects that can be transported from one society to another and evaluates
that the adoption is as successful as the adapted version resembles the original one. Alter-
natively, model adaptation supposes that transcendental models (as democracy, for
instance) assume variegated cultural forms in different societies, and therefore models
cannot be simply adopted as such; rather, they must be translated in order to fit the
peculiar circumstances of the societies that implement them. Finally, the multiple moder-
nities approach disputes the commonly accepted idea that modernity refers essentially to
a single normative model, and conceives the possibility of different modernity projects,
originated in distinct social circumstances, to coexist. These approaches are not mutually
8 A. DE ALBUQUERQUE

exclusive; rather, they correspond to different angles of observation about the very same
phenomena.

Modernity, Modernization, and Multiple Modernities

Giddens’ definition of modernity as “modes of social life or organisation which emerged in
Europe from about the seventeenth century onwards and which subsequently became
more or less worldwide in their influence” (1990, 1) expresses ideas taken for granted
for much of the academic literature, as it identifies the West as a normative yardstick
for the rest of the world. Other authors have contested this notion, however, by suggesting
that the superiority of the West has to do primarily with power, rather than with merit.
According to Mignolo (2011), coloniality is inseparable from modernity; it is its dark
side. Chakrabarty noted a fundamental contradiction inherent to the colonial project, as
“the European colonizer of the nineteenth century both preached this Enlightenment
humanism at the colonized and at the same time denied it in practice” (2000, 4).
The concept of modernization is a later derivation from the broader idea of modernity,
which gained popularity after the end of the World War II, associated to the US rise to a
superpower status and the decolonization process (Tipps 1973; Wilkins 2004). This
approach put a prize on the idea of transition towards modernity, that is filling the gap
separating the traditional societies from the modern ones (Schmidt 2010). In the words
of Daniel Lerner:
From the West came the stimuli which undermined traditional society in the Middle East, for
reconstruction of a modern society that will operate efficiently in the world today, the West is
still a useful model. What the West is, in this sense, the Middle East seeks to become. (Lerner
1958, 47)

In the following years, the concept of modernization gained relevance both in scholarly
research and international policy initiatives due to the interplay between US universities
and scholars, on the one hand, and international organizations as UNESCO, on the
other (Rogers 1976; Schramm 1964). The influence of the US media model peaked in
the 1980–1990s, as globalization affected media structures around the world, through
deregulation, privatization, and the rise of media organizations, in such a way that this
phenomenon was depicted as “Americanization” (Negrine and Papathanassopoulos
1996; Swanson and Mancini 1986). Since then, numerous initiatives aiming to promote
western, and especially the US models of journalism have taken place in the international
arena, promoted under the auspices of US government agencies, philanthropic organiz-
ations and the World Bank (Barker 2008; Kumar 2006; Norris 2010).
Contrary to modernization theory’s focus on modernization as a homogeneous, “closed”
process, the multiple modernities approach conceives the possibility of the coexistence of
different projects of modernity, beyond Westernization (Eisenstadt, Riedel, and Sachsen-
maier 2002; Schmidt 2010). According to Shmuel Eisenstadt, who coined the concept of
multiple modernities, “Western patterns of modernity are not the only ‘authentic’ moder-
nities, though they enjoy historical precedence and continue to be a basic reference point
for others” (2000, 3). It follows that societies exposed to Western models or modernity are
not passive receivers of it: As they incorporate some of their elements, they reject others,
particularly those “which took for granted the hegemony of the Western formulations of
 JOURNALISM STUDIES 9

the cultural program of modernity” (2000, 14). Thus, the multiple modernization framework
highlights elements as heterogeneity, multi-centricity and endogenous development of
modernity in different social contexts (Kaya 2004; Mota and Delanty 2015).
Multiple modernities studies have dedicated a modest attention to Latin America in
comparison with the great civilizations of the Eurasian Axial Age (Mota and Delanty
2015), but this does not mean it is an uncharted territory. Most authors agree that, as
no “ageless traditions” were able to survive the colonial period (Mignolo 2005; Ortiz
2000; Whitehead 2006), the Latin American societies came to define themselves based
on their peripheral status vis-à-vis their former colonizers and, later, the Western Civiliza-
tion. In contrast with Asia and Africa, the confrontation of Latin American societies with the
West is not “a confrontation with an alien culture imposed from outside – but rather a
reflexive exercise in coming to terms with their own other origins” (Eisenstadt 2002, 45).

Folha’s Reform as Model Adoption

Model adoption has been the dominant framework in studies about journalism moderniz-
ation in societies located beyond the western world. Its influence is perceptible in numerous
works that, in a greater or lesser degree, take western models (notably American and British)
as a referential to evaluate changings in journalism in these societies. Examples include the
examination of the establishment of a free press committed with the Fourth Estate ideals in
Mexico, in the 1990s (Lawson 2002), the analysis of the factors hampering a “successful
transplant of U.S. journalism” to South America (Waisbord 2000) and how, in Mexico,
Panama, Guatemala, Chile and Argentina, emergent journalistic organizations attempted
“to emulate the US watchdog press, even when and where the political and legal circum-
stances were adverse” (Alves 2005), only to name a few Latin American cases.
The popularity of this framework did not happen by chance; rather it is associated to an
active effort to promote the United States as a universal model of modernization (Lerner
1958; Wilkins 2004), which began after the World War II, and gained ground in the wake of
the decolonization process. In recent decades, media assistance initiatives promoted by
the United States government (Price 2002), international financial institutions as the
World Bank (Norris 2010) and specialized NGOs (Miller 2009) contributed to consolidate
the influence of the model adoption framework worldwide.
The premise of Brazilian journalism’s backwardness is the cornerstone of Folha’s reform
and its emulation of the US model of journalism. In Lins da Silva’s words “there is nothing
‘revolutionary’ on the project’s propositions. On the contrary, Folha resumes and reinforces
elementary principles of American journalism, which have worked as an indisputable
model for the Brazilian one” (1998, 98). In fact, the US influence in Brazilian journalism
can be traced to the creation of the Office of the Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs
(OCIAA), in 1940. In the following years, the OCIAA actively promoted US values (the Amer-
ican Way of Life) in Brazil and provided training in US journalism techniques to Brazilian
journalists (Glander 2000; Tota 2000). The Diário Carioca’s newspaper reform, in 1950,
which first presented the objectivity norm as an ideal to be followed by Brazilian journal-
ists is a direct consequence of this effort, as both Danton Jobim and Pompeu de Souza,
who were ahead of it, joined the OCIAA program. Additionally, Lins da Silva earned a
Master Degree at Michigan State University before taking part in Folha’s reform. This
suggests that the perception of the existence of a gap between the journalism as practiced
10 A. DE ALBUQUERQUE

in other societies and the US maybe, in a great measure the product of the US successful
process of model promotion, rather than merely the result of a spontaneous finding from
journalists living in these societies.

Folha’s Reform as Model Adaptation

The model adaptation framework also takes the term “model” in the singular, but
approaches the problem from its demand side, by exploring how an original model is
transformed by the adapting society (Voltmer and Wasserman 2014). As model adoption
focuses on what will be done, rather than on how it will be done. Here, differences
between the original model and its adapted form are not only acceptable; they are
really expected, as they allow a model to work in circumstances entirely distinct from
those in which it originally developed.
The adaptation framework plays a relevant role in Folha’s rationale about its reforming
process. It is argued that this process should provide a shortcut to modernity, as a means
for compensating the existence of huge differences existing between Brazil and advanced
western societies. Two consequences follow this argument. On the one hand, this allowed
the reformers to justify the necessity of employing authoritarian measures to reform the
newspaper. The point, here, is not to discuss how authoritarian Folha’s reform really
was, but to note that, in their accounts about the process, the reformers themselves empha-
sized authoritarian measures as inevitable, in face of the newspaper’s perceived backward-
ness. Frias Filho highlighted authoritarian and conflictive aspects of the process, as he
describes it as an effort aiming “to discipline and repress the experience previously accu-
mulated” (1988, 23) and affirms that the Manual “was imposed with a series of very dra-
conian measures” (2003, 361). Additionally, Lins da Silva classifies some of the decisions
took by the management along the process as “arbitrary and authoritarian” (2005, 158).
On the other hand, it allowed Folha managers to exonerate themselves from obligations
regarding the journalists’ rights. An interesting example refers to Lins da Silva’s account
about the firing of all 72 members of Folha’s team of reviewers, in the wake of the news-
paper’s process of technological modernization. After describing successful processes of
agreement between journalists and newspapers’ management in Asashi Shimbum and
New York Times, and in the press agency France Press, which allowed journalists to keep
their jobs, or received a considerable financial compensation in exchange for them, he sus-
tains that such measures were not applicable in Folha’s case, given that “it is impossible to
compare the American, Japanese, or French capitalism with the Brazilian one” (Lins da
Silva 1988, 57). In his view “the contradictions of peripheral capitalism maximize the una-
voidable brutality of the process of technological modernization” (Lins da Silva 1988, 57).

Folha’s Reform in the Context of Multiple Modernities

Analyses based on the multiple modernities framework are still rare in communication
studies (Kamali 2012; Kraidy 2008; Lu 2010), and even more in journalism studies
(Macías and Vitoria 2018). Different from “model adoption” and “model adaptation”, in
the multiple modernities framework external models are not the point of departure for
the analysis. Rather, multiple modernity initial focus lies on endogenous aspects
affecting modernization in a given society (that is, the local problems); only after this,
 JOURNALISM STUDIES 11

they consider the impact exerted by external models. From a multiple modernities per-
spective, the prime purpose of Folha’s reform was solving concrete problems presented
to the newspaper’s managers, rather than simply emulating external models. In this
view, the core importance of the reference to the US model was to provide reformers
with means to legitimate their actions.
Folha’s reform can be thought as resulting primarily from its managers attempt to change
the rules of the game in order to keep control over the newsroom, at a time when their auth-
ority faced a serious challenge. This situation may be summed up as follows: (1) from the
1950s to the 1970s, communist journalists exerted a considerable influence on Brazilian
newspapers, even those with a conservative editorial policy; their presence was based on
an unspoken pact: In exchange for keeping the newsrooms in order and respecting the edi-
torial line of the newspapers, they were allowed to hire fellow communists and enjoyed pol-
itical protection from their bosses (Abreu 2017); (2) along the 1970s it became evident this
arrangement was not working any more, not only because the newspapers evolved and
became more complex organizations, but also because the Brazilian Communist Party
(PCB) lost its hegemonic position to other forces – particularly the Workers’ Party (PT) –
which were not interested in keeping good relations with the management (Roxo 2012,
2013); (3) in face of these changes, Folha’s managers attempted to rebuild their influence
in different bases, and the Folha Project is the expression of such effort.
These circumstances make the Leninist influence over Folha’s rhetoric appear less arbi-
trary than it did at first. The widespread presence of communist journalists in Brazilian
newsrooms contributed to make elements of the Leninist ethos an important part of jour-
nalists’ professional culture. Here, two aspects are worth noting. First, both Communism
and Liberalism provide alternative pathways to modernization in non-western societies
(Lerner 1958; Roudakova 2017), and therefore it is reasonable to suppose they share
some characteristics. However, the impact of the Cold War in the academic research
agenda discouraged the perception of similarities between them, as the Communist
society was usually presented as an inverted mirror of western democracies (Krylova
2000; Szpunar 2012; Viola 2002). Second, communists are not the same everywhere.
Even in the limited sample of Central and Eastern Europe Communist regimes, Communist
parties and regimes organized in different social and political bases (Kitschelt et al. 1999);
in Brazil, most communists had a middle-class background, and after World War II, PCB
became very popular among the Brazilian intelligentsia (Rodrigues 1986; Roxo and Sacra-
mento 2012). Additionally, PCB professed a reformist approach to politics, committed with
a modernization of the Brazilian society. All of this allowed Brazilian communist journalists
to find significant points of convergence with their bosses.
Alternatively, the reformers’ mention to the Fourth Estate and the Neoliberal models is
connected to their effort in justifying it. These two models accomplish very different roles
in the newspaper’s discourse, however. On the one hand, the Fourth Estate model, associ-
ated primarily to the US and UK serves as a normative yardstick for the reform, and the
reference to it makes sense in light of the systematic effort of the postcolonial elites of
legitimizing themselves as the promoters of the Western civilization modern values in
their own societies. By doing this, they work as internal colonizers (Ekeh 1975; Gonzá-
lez-Casanova 1965). Latin American societies provide an especially interesting example
on this respect, as their elites often portray themselves as displaced Western people
living in sub-Western societies and claim for themselves the role of filling what they
12 A. DE ALBUQUERQUE

believe to be a civilizing gap (Mignolo 2005; Whitehead 2006). On the other hand, the Neo-
liberal elements of Folha’s rationale are strategic, as they allow the reformers to dissociate
the journalistic authority from the journalists and transfer it to the newspaper, understood
as a business organization. By doing this, they provide a justification for the reformers’
initiative of curbing radically the autonomy of Folha’s journalists.

Taking the Three Approaches Together

The relevance of selecting certain analytical frameworks instead of others is not only theor-
etical, but also political. Model adoption is associated to a “transmission view of communi-
cation” (Carey 1989), which supposes that models can be transferred from a society to
another, and takes the agent adopting the model as being essentially passive (a receptor).
This approach became hegemonic in the international media research, in association to
modernization initiatives led by the US and international organizations (Glander 2000;
Rogers 1976). Accordingly, the exemplary character of certain models is taken for
granted, and the differences existing between the original model and the adopting
societies indicate a failure. From this view, the specific characteristics of the model-
adopter societies interest only in the measure in which they provide opportunities for
or, alternatively, raise barriers against model-adoption (e.g., Alves 2005; Lawson 2002;
Waisbord 2000). In the specific case of Folha, this framework sheds light on the reformers’
rationale about ends: Here, Brazil’s peripheral condition provides the argument for the
reform, understood as a means for diminishing Brazilian journalism’s perceived gap
regarding the other countries, especially the US.
As model adoption, model adaptation takes “model” in the singular; however, these
two perspectives differ in the degree of autonomy they attribute to those who receive or
reinterpret the original model. The model adaptation framework is consistent with the
cultural model of communication (Carey 1989), and the differences regarding the orig-
inal model are perfectly acceptable, given that adaptation supposes an active process
of cultural translation. Model adaptation provides a framework to understand Folha’s
rationale about the means employed in the reforming process. In this case, Brazil’s per-
ipheral position excuses Folha from following the practices from news organizations
present in western advanced societies with respect to the workers’ rights of its
journalists.
Both the normative reference to foreign models and the active effort to adapt them to
the specific circumstances of local societies have a considerable importance in the mul-
tiple modernities approach, but they only make sense with reference to a third, more fun-
damental dimension: The manners in which societies experience the modernization
processes and the problems related to them in their inner dynamics. The point to empha-
size here is that, in postcolonial/peripheral societies, as those existing in Latin America, the
reference to foreign models allows certain agents – usually belonging to their elites – to
reclaim political and cultural authority, by associating themselves to the “universal values”
of the Western Civilization and using this as a resource to defend their own interests. In the
specific case of Folha’s reform, this approach suggests that concrete problems, related to
the management’s effort to keep control over the newsroom, in a time when journalism
was experiencing critical changes, provided the core motivation for the reform. Some
recurring elements of the mainstream account about it make sense in light of this
 JOURNALISM STUDIES 13

approach, especially the emphasis on the inevitability of the employment of authoritarian

methods to implement the reform.

Conclusion
The mainstream account of Folha’s reform in the 1980s presents it as a well-succeeded
effort for modernizing Brazilian journalism, by emulating the US model. This view corre-
sponds to a model adoption approach, which has been prevalent in the international lit-
erature on journalism modernization. In this view, the normative reference to the US
model, and the perception of Brazilian journalism as being fundamentally backward in
comparison to it are strategic, as they contribute to legitimize Folha’s reform. Although
this approach points correctly to a relevant aspect of modernization processes – the
US/UK Fourth Estate model really works as a normative for journalism worldwide – it
does this in a one-dimensional manner, by minimizing other relevant aspects of the
problem.
Alternatively, model adaptation offers a bidimensional approach to the problem, as it
supposes that models cannot simply travel from a place to another; rather they must
be translated, actively reinterpreted by those who embrace the model.
This approach is important in Folha’s discourse about the reforming process too, as the
supposed backwardness of Brazilian society allows the newspaper simultaneously to
ignore the journalists’ professional rights and require them to work harder than the jour-
nalists of other, “more advanced” societies.
However, a third dimension of this problem remains underexplored by the literature
on journalism modernization, concerning the reasons that motivate local agents to
engage in modernization initiatives. The multiple modernities approach offers a promis-
ing framework for dealing with it, as it sustains that, in peripheral societies, moderniz-
ation processes involve the interplay between Western modernity and aspects of local
cultures. Two types of outcomes follow this interplay. One of them refers to unique cir-
cumstances and problems presenting in a given society, as for instance the role of the
communists in Brazilian newsrooms along the 1950–1970s, which allowed them to
influence considerably the journalistic culture in the country. The other relates to
more general patterns shared by distinct societies, associated to their peripheral mode
of insertion in the global order. Very often, the elites of these societies present them-
selves as promoters of Western Civilization’s values amid an essentially uncivilized popu-
lation. This logic is particularly influent in Latin America. From the viewpoint of these
elites, it is convenient to emphasize the backwardness of their societies, as it allows
them to claim authority to solve the problem. Therefore, from a multiple modernities per-
spective, modernization is not a neutral process; rather, it provides certain sectors of the
society (usually belonging to the elites) with an opportunity to claim authority and exert
power over others. In a great measure, this appears to be a core motivation behind
Folha’s reforming process.

Notes
1. Frias Filho refers to Russian politician Alexander Kerensky, whose moderate govern was over-
thrown by the Bolsheviks in 1917, in the wake of the October Revolution.
14 A. DE ALBUQUERQUE

2. In its 1984 version, “strike” is the subject of a 130-words entry. A more detailed, 220-words
entry was published in 1987. In 1992, two identical 180-words entries were published. This
does not happen by accident. The Manual informs that entries considered very important
for the implementation of Folha editorial project may be published twice, in different sections
of the book. No other issue was subject of detailed instructions for its coverage in any of the
Manual editions.
3. Lins da Silva (2005, 154) affirms that, in only one year, the Manual sold more than 17 thousand
copies, which makes it a best seller book about journalism in Brazil.

Disclosure Statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Funding
This work was supported by Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico [grant
number 304068/2014-4].

References
Abramo, Claudio. 1988. A regra do jogo [The Rule of the Game]. São Paulo: Companhia das Letras.
Abreu, Alzira Alves. 2017. Desafios da notícia: o jornalismo brasileiro ontem e hoje [The Challenges of
News: Brazilian Journalism, Past and Present]. Rio de Janeiro: FGV Editora.
Alves, Rosental Calmon. 2005. “From Lapdog to Watchdog: The Role of the Press in Latin America’s
Democratization.” In Making Journalists, edited by Hugo de Burgh, 181–204. London: Routledge.
Arbex Jr, José. 2001. Showrnalismo – a Notícia como Espetáculo [Showrnalism – News as Spectacle].
São Paulo: Casa Amarela.
Barker, Michael J. 2008. “Democracy or Poliarchy? US-Funded Media Developments in Afeghanistan
and Iraq Post-9/11.” Media, Culture & Society 30 (1): 109–130.
Brown, Wendy. 2005. Edgework: Critical Essays on Knowledge and Politics. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
Carey, James W. 1989. Communication as Culture: Essays on Media and Society. London: Unwin
Hyman.
Carey, James W. 2007. “A Short History of Journalism for Journalists: A Proposal and Essay.” The
International Journal of Press/Politics 12 (1): 3–16.
Chakrabarty, Dipesh. 2000. Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial Thought and Historical Difference.
Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.
Chalaby, Jean K. 1996. “Journalism as an Anglo-American Invention: a Comparison of French and
Anglo-American Journalism, 1830-1920.” European Journal of Communication 11 (3): 303–326.
Costa, Caio Túlio. 1991. O relógio de Pascal: a experiência do primeiro ombudsman brasileiro [Paschal’s
Clockwork: The Experience of Brazilian Firsts Ombudsman]. São Paulo: Siciliano.
Eisenstadt, Shmuel N. 2000. “Multiple Modernities.” Daedalus 129 (1): 1–29.
Eisenstadt, Shmuel N. 2002. “The Civilizations of the Americas: The Crystalization of Distinct
Modernities.” Comparative Sociology 1 (1): 43–61.
Eisenstadt, Shmuel N., Jens Riedel, and Dominic Sachsenmaier. 2002. “The Context of the Multiple
Modernities Paradigm.” In Reflections on Multiple Modernities: European, Chinese, and Other
Interpretations, edited by Dominic Sachsenmaier, Shmuel N. Eisenstadt, and Jens Riedel, 1–23.
Leiden: Brill.
Ekeh, Peter P. 1975. “Colonialism and the Two Publics in Africa: A Theoretical Statement.”
Comparative Studies in Society and History 17 (1): 91–112.
Folha de S. Paulo. 1981. “A Folha e alguns passos que é preciso dar” [Folha and Some Steps to be
Done]. http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/conheca/projetos-1981-1.shtml.
 JOURNALISM STUDIES 15

Folha de S. Paulo. 1984a. Manual Geral da Redação [General Newsroom’s Stylebook]. São Paulo: Folha
de S. Paulo.
Folha de S. Paulo. 1984b. “A Folha depois da campanha das diretas-já” [Folha After diretas-já
Campaign]. http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/conheca/projetos-1984-1.shtml.
Folha de S. Paulo. 1985. “Novos Rumos” [New Directions]. http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/
conheca/projetos-1985-1.shtml.
Folha de S. Paulo. 1986. “A Folha em busca da excelência” [Folha in Search of Excellence]. http://
www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/conheca/projetos-1986-1.shtml.
Folha de S. Paulo. 1987. Manual Geral da Redação [General Newsroom’s Stylebook]. 2nd ed. São
Paulo: Folha de S. Paulo.
Folha de S. Paulo. 1992. Novo Manual da Redação [New Newsroom’s Stylebook]. São Paulo: Folha de
S. Paulo.
Folha de S. Paulo. 2001. Manual da Redação [Newsroom’s Stylebook]. São Paulo: Publifolha.
Frias Filho, Otávio. 1984. Vampiros de Papel [Paper Vampires]. Folhetim, Folha de S. Paulo. August 5.
Frias Filho, Otávio. 1988. “Apresentação [Presentation].” In Mil Dias: os bastidores da revolução em um
grande jornal [A Thousand Days: The Background of the Revolution in a Big Newspaper], edited by
Carlos Eduardo Lins da Silva, 23–26. São Paulo: Trajetória Editorial.
Frias Filho, Otávio. 2003. “Interview.” In Eles mudaram a imprensa: depoimentos ao CPDOC [They Have
Changed the Press: Interviews to CPDOC], edited by Alzira Alves Abreu, Fernando Lattman-
Weltman, and Dora Rocha (org), 345–384. Rio de Janeiro: FGV Editora.
Giddens, Anthony. 1990. The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Glander, Timothy. 2000. Origins of Mass Communication Research During the American Cold War.
Educational Effects and Contemporary Implications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
González-Casanova, Pablo. 1965. “Internal Colonialism and National Development.” Studies in
Comparative International Development 1 (4): 27–37.
Harvey, David. 2005. A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Herscovitz, Heloiza G. 2004. “Brazilian Journalists’ Perceptions of Media Roles, Ethics and Foreign
Influences on Brazilian Journalism.” Journalism Studies 5 (1): 71–86.
Jobim, Danton. 1954. “French and US Influences Upon the Latin American Press.” Journalism
Quarterly 31 (1): 61–66.
Josephi, Beate. 2013. “How Much Democracy Does Journalism Need?” Journalism: Theory, Practice &
Criticism 14 (3): 474–489.
Kamali, Masoud. 2012. “Multiple Modernities and Mass Communications in Muslim Countries.” Global
Media and Communication 8 (3): 243–268.
Kaya, Ibrahim. 2004. “Modernity, Openness, Interpretation: A Perspective on Multiple Modernities.”
Social Science Information 43 (1): 35–57.
Kitschelt, Herbert, Zdenka Mansfeldova, Radoslaw Markowski, and Gabor Tóka. 1999. Post-
Communist: Competition, Representation and Inter-Party Cooperation. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Kraidy, Marwan M. 2008. “Reality TV and Multiple Arab Modernities: A Theoretical Exploration.” Middle
East Journal of Culture and Communication 1: 49–59.
Krylova, Anna. 2000. “The Tenacious Liberal Subject in Soviet Studies.” Kritika: Explorations in Russian
and Eurasian History 1 (1): 119–146.
Kucinski, Bernardo. 1998. A síndrome da antena parabólica: ética no jornalismo brasileiro [The
Parabolic Antena Syndromme: Ethics in Brazilian Journalism]. São Paulo: Fundação Perseu
Abramo.
Kumar, Krishna. 2006. “International Assistance to Promote Independent Media in Transition and
Post-Conflict Societies.” Democratization 13 (4): 652–667.
Lawson, Chappell H. 2002. Building the Fourth Estate. Democratization and the Rise of a Free Press in
Mexico. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Lenin, Vladimir Ilitch. 1961. Collected Works, Vol 5. Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House.
Lerner, Daniel. 1958. The Passing of Traditional Society. Modernizing the Middle East. New York: The
Free Press.
16 A. DE ALBUQUERQUE

Lins da Silva, Carlos Eduardo. 1988. Mil Dias: os bastidores da revolução em um grande jornal [A
Thousand Days: The Background of the Revolution in a Big Newspaper]. São Paulo: Trajetória
Editorial.
Lins da Silva, Carlos Eduardo. 1991. O adiantado da hora. A influência americana sobre o jornalismo
brasileiro [The Early Hour: American Influence on Brazilian Journalism]. São Paulo: Summus
Editorial.
Lins da Silva, Carlos Eduardo. 1992. “Prefácio a esta edição [Preface to This Edition].” In O espírito do
jornalismo [The Spirit of Journalism], edited by D. Jobim, 11–15. São Paulo: EDUSP.
Lins da Silva, Carlos Eduardo. 2005. Mil Dias: Seis Mil Dias Depois [A Thousand Days: Six Thousand Days
Later]. São Paulo: Publifolha.
Lu, Jia. 2010. “Multiple Modernities and Multiple Proximities: McDonald’s and Kentucky Fried Chicken
in Chinese Television Commercials.” International Communication Gazette 72 (7): 619–633.
Macías, Rúben Arnoldo Gonzalez, and Martin Echeverria Vitoria. 2018. “A medio camino. El sistema
mediático mexicano y su irregular processo de modernización.” Revista Mexicana de Opinión
Publica 13 (24): 35–51.
Matos, Carolina. 2008. Journalismo and Political Democracy in Brazil. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
Mellado, Claudia, Sônia V. Moreira, Claudia Lagos, and Maria E Hernández. 2012. “Comparing
Journalism Cultures in Latin America: The Case of Chile, Brazil and Mexico.” International
Communication Gazette 74 (1): 60–77.
Mignolo, Walter D. 2005. The Idea of Latin America. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Mignolo, Walter D. 2011. The Darker Side of Western Modernity: Global Futures, Decolonial Options.
Durham: Duke University Press.
Miller, James. 2009. “NGOS and ‘Democratization’ and ‘Modernization’ of the Media: Situating Media
Assistance.” Global Media and Communication 5 (1): 9–33.
Mota, Carlos Guilherme, and Maria Helena Capelato. 1981. História da Folha de S. Paulo (1921-1981)
[History of Folha de S. Paulo (1921–1981)]. São Paulo: Impress.
Mota, Áurea, and Gerard Delanty. 2015. “Eisenstadt, Brazil, and the Multiple Modernities Framework:
Revisions and Reconsiderations.” Journal of Classical Sociology 15 (1): 39–57.
Negrine, Ralph, and Stylianos Papathanassopoulos. 1996. “The Americanization of Political
Communication: A Critique.” Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics 1 (2): 45–62.
Norris, Pippa, ed. 2010. Public Sentinel: News Media and Governance Reform. Washington, DC: World
Bank.
Novelli, Ana Lúcia. 2002. “O Projeto Folha e a negação do quarto poder [The Folha Project and the
Negation of the Fourth Estate].” In Imprensa e Poder [Press and Power], edited by Luiz Gonzaga
Mota, 181–197. Brasília/São Paulo: Editora UnB/Imprensa Oficial SP.
Ortiz, Renato. 2000. From incomplete modernity to world modernity. Deadalus 129 (1): 249–260.
Perosa, Lilian Maria Farias de Lima. 2004. Cidadania proibida: o caso Herzog através da imprensa
[Restrained Citizenship: The Herzog Case in the Press]. São Paulo: Sindicato dos Jornalistas
Profissionais no Estado de São Paulo/Imprensa Oficial.
Price, Monroe. 2002. The Enabling Environment for Free and Independent Media: Contribution to
Transparent and Accountable Government. USAID Office of Democracy and Governance
Occasional Papers Series. http://repository.upenn.edu/asc_papers/65.
Rodrigues, Leôncio Martins. 1986. “O PCB: os dirigentes e a organização [PCB: Leaders and the
Organization].” In História Geral da Civilização Brasileira: o Brasil Republicano [General History of
Brazilian Civilization: Brazilian Republic] v. 2, edited by Boris Fausto, 361–443. São Paulo: Difel.
Rogers, Everett M. 1976. “Communication and Development. The Passing of the Dominant
Paradigm.” Communication Research 3 (2): 213–240.
Roudakova, Natalia. 2017. Losing Pravda. Ethics and The Press in Post-Truth Russia. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Roxo, Marco. 2012. “A identidade profissional à esquerda: as relações entre jornalismo e comunismo
no Brasil [Professional Identity on the Left: Relations Between Journalism and Communism in
Brazil].” In Intelectuais Partidos: os Comunistas e a Mídia no Brasil [Splited Intelectuals:
Communists and Media in Brazil], edited by Marco Roxo, and Igor Sacramento, 241–263. Rio de
Janeiro: E-Papers.
 JOURNALISM STUDIES 17

Roxo, Marco. 2013. Companheiros em Luta: A Greve dos Jornalistas de 1979 [Comrades in Arms: The
Journalists’ Strike in 1979]. Niterói: Eduff.
Roxo, Marco, and Igor Sacramento. 2012. Intelectuais Partidos: os Comunistas e a Mídia no Brasil
[Splited Intelectuals: Communists and Media in Brazil]. Rio de Janeiro: E-Papers.
Schmidt, Volker H. 2010. “Modernity and Diversity: Reflections on the Controversy Between
Modernization Theory and Multiple Modernities.” Social Science Information 49 (4): 511–538.
Schramm, Wilbur. 1964. Mass Media and National Development: The Role of Information in the
Developing Countries. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Singer, André, Carlos Eduardo Lins da Silva, Otavio Frias Filho, José Marques de Melo, and Maria
Helena Rolim Capelato. 2003. Um país aberto. Reflexões sobre a Folha de S. Paulo e o jornalismo
contemporâneo [An Open Country. Reflections on Folha de S. Paulo and the Contemporary
Journalism]. São Paulo: Publifolha.
Smith, Anne-Marie. 1997. A Forced Agreement: Press Acquiescence to Censorship in Brazil. Pittsburgh:
University of Pittsburg Press.
Swanson, David L., and Paolo Mancini, eds. 1986. Politics, Media, and Modern Democracy. New York:
Praeger.
Szpunar, Piotr M. 2012. “Western Journalism’s ‘Other’: The Legacy of the Cold War in the Comparative
Study of Journalism.” Journalism: Theory, Practice & Criticism 13 (1): 3–20.
Tipps, Dean C. 1973. “Modernization Theory and the Comparative Study of Societies: A Critical
Perspective.” Comparative Studies in Society and History 15 (2): 199–226.
Tota, Antonio Pedro. 2000. O imperialismo sedutor: a americanização do Brasil na época da Segunda
Guerra [The Seductive Imperialism: The Americanization of Brazil in the World War II]. São Paulo:
Companhia das Letras.
Viola, Lynne. 2002. “The Cold War in the American Soviet Historiography and the End of the Soviet
Union.” The Russian Review 61 (1): 25–34.
Voltmer, Katrin, and Herman Wasserman. 2014. “Journalism Norms Between Universality and
Domestication: Journalists’ Interpretations of Press Freedom in Six New Democracies.” Global
Media and Communication 10 (2): 177–192.
Waisbord, Silvio R. 2000. Watchdog Journalism in South America: News, Accountability, and Democracy.
New York: Columbia University Press.
Whitehead, Lawrence. 2006. Latin America: A New Interpretation. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
Wilkins, Karin Gwinn. 2004. “Communication and Transition in the Middle East. A Critical Analysis of
US Intervention and Academic Literature.” International Communication Gazette 66 (6): 483–496.
Zelizer, Barbie. 2018. “Resetting Journalism in the Aftermath of Brexit and Trump.” European Journal
of Communication. doi:10.1177/0267323118760318.