Brazil’s Ouster of Journalist Raises Red Flag

The government of Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva is used to criticism that it is thin on experience, thin on ideas and thin on achievements. Now come accusations that it is just too thin-skinned.

Lula’s advisors have ordered the expulsion of a U.S. reporter who wrote an unflattering story suggesting that the president’s fondness for a stiff drink might be impairing his job performance.

The decision ran into a volley of protests Wednesday from journalists worried over restrictions on the media and politicians who initially rallied around their leader but who now say that his reaction has gone too far.

Even the U.S. government has weighed in, calling the expulsion order contrary to Brazil’s commitment to freedom of the press.

The offending article by veteran correspondent Larry Rohter, which appeared in Sunday’s New York Times, gave voice to rumors that have been circulating for weeks among the chattering classes in the capital, Brasilia. The article cited critics and opponents of Lula who wondered whether his well-known affinity for spirits was keeping him from fulfilling his responsibilities.

Already battered by a series of political defeats, the Planalto Palace, Brazil’s White House, swung into high gear hours after the article was published. Lula’s spokesmen denounced the story as a tissue of lies and calumny, while Brazilian lawmakers, usually a fractious bunch, were nearly unanimous in their condemnation of the article, which they called an affront to national honor.

That the story appeared in such an influential journal, especially an American one, heightened the sense of outrage and produced dark mutterings about Rohter’s motives, including implications that the U.S. government, stung by Brazil’s assertiveness in recent trade talks, had put him up to it, or that other unnamed forces, working through Rohter, sought to bring Lula down.

“He took on the role of a shadowy spokesman of a coup movement, but democracy is well-established here,” said Arlindo Chinaglia, the leader of Lula’s Workers’ Party in the National Congress.

Apparently sensing that public sentiment was behind the president, Lula’s government announced Tuesday that it would revoke Rohter’s visa. Upon being served notice in person, Rohter -- who is based in Rio but currently traveling outside the country -- would have eight days to clear out of Brazil, under possible threat of force.

“The author of the report doesn’t know me, and I don’t know him,” Lula told reporters, “but he should be more worried than I am.”

However, the decision immediately set off a firestorm of criticism. Journalists and human rights groups around the world Wednesday warned of a chill on free speech.

Political observers pointed out the irony of a left-wing leader like Lula, who with his comrades suffered years of political persecution and harassment when they were in opposition against Brazil’s military regime, resorting to such measures to muzzle criticism.

Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis said via e-mail to Reuters that after consultations with legal counsel in Brazil, “we believe there is no basis for revocation of Mr. Rohter’s visa and would take appropriate action to defend his rights.”

Times Executive Editor Bill Keller told the news service that if Brazil “intends to expel a journalist for writing an article that offended the president, that would raise serious questions about Brazil’s professed commitment to freedom of expression and a free press.”

Brazilian officials who had quickly lined up to defend Lula just as quickly denounced what they saw as a clumsy, ham-handed move that would only worsen whatever damage was already inflicted to Brazil’s image by the article.

“It was absurd, an immature decision of a dictator of a third-rate republic,” said Sen. Tasso Jereissati, a member of an opposition party. “Imagine if the United States started to revoke the visas of Brazilian journalists who spoke ill of President Bush.”

“The medicine was more harmful than the sickness,” said Jairo Nicolau, a political scientist in Rio. “The news would have died. Few readers would have known about it.”

Now, with the expulsion controversy, the allegations of intemperate behavior by Lula would only spread to a larger audience, and “the government has spent two days discussing this issue, wasting time and energy that should be dedicated to more important issues,” Nicolau said.

Some politicians moved to delay or block revocation of Rohter’s visa in court Wednesday, while leaders of a few opposition parties threatened to withhold their support for a motion in Congress censuring Rohter if Lula did not lift the expulsion threat.

“The New York Times article was wrong and sensationalist,” said Chico Alencar, a congressman from the Workers’ Party. But the move to revoke Rohter’s visa was “arbitrary and politically not intelligent,” he added. “If I had been consulted, I would have told my friend and president it was the wrong decision.”

Times staff writer Paula Gobbi contributed to this report.