When you hide the conversation, you control the narrative.
Em setembro de 2022, uma colunista do Brasil 247 respondeu a críticas feitas por Patrícia Campos Mello, da Folha de S. Paulo, que equiparou veículos independentes de esquerda a portais bolsonaristas. O que estava em jogo não era apenas uma disputa entre jornalistas, mas uma questão mais antiga e persistente: quem define os limites da credibilidade jornalística, e com que critérios. A ironia não passou despercebida — a mídia independente havia defendido Campos Mello quando ela própria foi atacada, e agora via essa defesa retribuída com uma comparação que considerava desonesta. No fundo, o episódio revelou as assimetrias de poder que estruturam o debate sobre liberdade de imprensa no Brasil.
- Uma jornalista da Folha de S. Paulo, ela própria vítima de ataques que a mídia independente havia denunciado, publica um texto equiparando veículos progressistas a portais de desinformação bolsonaristas — a acusação chega de onde menos se esperava.
- A colunista do Brasil 247 tenta responder nas próprias páginas da Folha: envia três cartas ao jornal e uma ao ombudsman, nenhuma é publicada, enquanto os comentários críticos ao texto de Campos Mello desaparecem do site ao longo do sábado.
- O Brasil 247 publica a troca completa de mensagens e mantém sua seção de comentários aberta, contrastando sua transparência editorial com o silêncio institucional do maior jornal do país.
- O episódio expõe uma tensão estrutural: ataques à mídia independente nem sempre vêm de políticos ou trolls, mas também chegam embrulhados na linguagem do fact-checking e dos padrões editoriais, wielded por quem tem muito mais alcance e poder institucional.
- A colunista encerra com um compromisso — publicar o que outros recusam, investigar o que outros ignoram, manter o diálogo aberto — reconhecendo que a defesa da liberdade de imprensa é um trabalho que não tem fim.
Em uma manhã de sábado no início de setembro de 2022, uma colunista do Brasil 247 se viu diante de uma tarefa incômoda: responder a críticas vindas de Patrícia Campos Mello, colunista da Folha de S. Paulo. O que a incomodou não foi o desacordo em si, mas o padrão que ele revelava. Campos Mello havia sido ameaçada e assediada em fevereiro de 2020, quando o então presidente atacou sua reportagem — e o Brasil 247 havia se posicionado publicamente em sua defesa. Agora, ela publicava um texto comparando veículos independentes de esquerda a portais alinhados ao bolsonarismo, como se operassem sob as mesmas condições e com os mesmos propósitos.
A resposta da colunista foi metódica. Ela resgatou os textos que havia escrito em solidariedade a Campos Mello, apontou que o Brasil 247 havia questionado, em um documentário, aspectos do atentado de Juiz de Fora em 2018 que nunca foram devidamente investigados — e que Campos Mello chamara esse trabalho de fake news sem enfrentar seu conteúdo. Tentou publicar sua perspectiva nas páginas da Folha: três cartas, nenhuma publicada. Uma ao ombudsman, também ignorada.
Enquanto isso, os comentários críticos ao texto de Campos Mello no site da Folha desapareceram ao longo do sábado, restritos primeiro a assinantes, depois simplesmente removidos. O Brasil 247, por sua vez, publicou a troca completa de mensagens e manteve sua seção de comentários aberta. A colunista via nesse contraste algo revelador: os ataques à mídia independente nem sempre chegam de forma direta. Às vezes vêm embrulhados na linguagem do rigor editorial, empunhados por quem tem muito mais alcance institucional.
Ela encerrou com uma afirmação de princípio. Veículos como o Brasil 247 continuariam a publicar o que outros recusam, a investigar o que outros ignoram, a manter o diálogo visível mesmo quando o silêncio seria mais cômodo. Outro setembro se aproximava, com seus próprios desafios. A tarefa de defender a liberdade de imprensa, concluiu, nunca está terminada.
On a Saturday morning in early September, a journalist at Brasil 247 sat down to respond to criticism that had come from an unexpected quarter: Patrícia Campos Mello, a prominent columnist at Folha de S. Paulo, one of Brazil's largest newspapers. The attack was sharp enough to warrant a defense, but what struck the Brasil 247 writer most was not the criticism itself—it was the pattern it represented. Here was a journalist who had herself been threatened and harassed, whose safety the independent media had defended, now turning her pen against the very outlets that had stood with her.
The columnist's response was methodical. She retrieved old pieces she had written in solidarity with Campos Mello during the threats she received in February 2020, when the then-president had targeted her reporting. Those defenses had been published not just on Brasil 247 but incorporated into the outlet's own editorial voice. Now, in September 2022, Campos Mello had published a piece comparing left-leaning independent news sites to Bolsonaro-aligned outlets, treating them as equivalent threats to journalistic integrity. The Brasil 247 writer found this comparison itself to be a false equivalence—the kind of rhetorical move she had criticized in other contexts.
What bothered her most was not disagreement but inconsistency. Campos Mello had reported on a stabbing attack in Juiz de Fora in 2018, and Brasil 247 had since published a documentary questioning why certain images and acts from that day had never been properly investigated. Campos Mello's recent piece labeled Brasil 247's inquiry as fake news. Yet here was a journalist who had spent years exposing misinformation, now dismissing investigative work without engaging its substance. The columnist had tried to make this point in letters to Folha de S. Paulo—three separate attempts—but none were published.
The Folha's comment section told its own story. On Saturday morning, readers could still post comments on the Folha's website version of Campos Mello's piece. By afternoon, the comments were gone. The newspaper had restricted commenting to subscribers only, and even then, access was limited. The Brasil 247 writer had managed to read some of the criticism before it disappeared, but could not preserve it. She contrasted this with Brasil 247's own approach: the independent outlet had published both the original piece by Campos Mello's critics and the full exchange of messages, leaving the conversation visible and intact.
This was the real issue, as she saw it. Independent media in Brazil faced relentless attacks—from politicians, from readers, from other journalists. But the attacks were not always direct. Sometimes they came wrapped in the language of fact-checking and editorial standards, deployed by outlets with far greater reach and institutional power. The columnist had written before, in November 2018, that Campos Mello's reporting on election interference deserved the same weight and follow-up that Folha gave to other major stories. It never received it. The story faded. The questions remained unanswered.
By Sunday, the Folha's ombudsman had published a piece criticizing false equivalences in how the newspaper treated different political figures. The columnist saw an opening and submitted another letter, pointing out that Campos Mello's own reporting contained the same logical flaw—comparing outlets across the political spectrum as though they operated under identical conditions and with identical resources. Again, the letter was not published. The pattern was becoming clear: certain criticisms were welcome in the Folha's pages; others were not.
The columnist ended where she began, with a statement of principle. Independent media in Brazil would continue to face attacks. The question was whether outlets like Brasil 247 could remain faithful to their founding commitments—to publish what others would not, to investigate what others would ignore, to keep their comment sections open even when silence would be easier. Another September was coming, she wrote, with its own challenges. The work of defending press freedom, it seemed, was never finished.
Notable Quotes
The attack on independent media is evident and constant. May Brasil 247 remain faithful to its principles and not falter.— Brasil 247 columnist (paraphrased)
An attack on this journalist is a crime against all of the press and the freedom of expression of all of us.— Brasil 247 columnist, writing in defense of Campos Mello in 2020 (paraphrased)
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why does it matter that Folha removed its comments section while Brasil 247 kept theirs open?
Because transparency is the only tool independent outlets have. When you hide the conversation, you control the narrative. Brasil 247 chose to let readers see the disagreement.
But Campos Mello is a real journalist who has been threatened. Doesn't she deserve protection from criticism?
Of course. But defending someone from threats is different from shielding their work from scrutiny. The columnist isn't attacking Campos Mello's safety—she's questioning her logic.
What's the actual disagreement about the stabbing in Juiz de Fora?
Brasil 247 published a documentary asking why certain images and evidence from that day were never fully investigated. Campos Mello called that inquiry fake news. The columnist is saying: if you spent years exposing misinformation, shouldn't you engage with the actual questions being asked?
Is the columnist saying Folha is hypocritical?
Not exactly. She's saying Folha applies different standards depending on who's doing the reporting. When Campos Mello reports on something, it gets treated as truth. When Brasil 247 investigates, it gets labeled as misinformation. That's not hypocrisy—it's power.
What does she mean by 'another September coming'?
She's suggesting this cycle will repeat. Independent outlets will be attacked, their credibility questioned, their reporting dismissed. The question is whether they'll keep publishing anyway.
So this is really about institutional power, not journalism?
It's about both. Good journalism requires credibility. But credibility is easier to build when you have a major newspaper behind you. When you don't, every story is a fight.