Wednesday, November 28th, 2007...23:32
De arrastão em arrastão
Daniel Oliveira mudou de endereço, mas não de sermão. Agora é por causa do artigo da “Veja” sobre Che Guevara. Jon Lee Anderson [repórter americano e autor de uma biografia de Che citada no mesmo artigo], não gostou do que foi escrito e enviou um email a criticar um dos autores da peça, Diogo Schelp, editor de internacional da revista brasileira. Não é que desconfie das fontes de DO mas preferia ler a carta no original. Não é a primeira nem será a última vez que um autor de um livro critica a interpretação de um jornalista - e vice-versa. Ou que jornalistas entram em confronto.
[Adenda ao poste corrigido: Li entretanto através do Google as duas versões que correm na net do email de Jon Lee Anderson e também a resposta do editor de internacional da Veja, assim como uma contra-resposta do repórter americano. Diogo Schelp afirma não ter recebido a mensagem inicial de Anderson apesar de o email ter sido distribuído por diversos jornalistas da concorrência. Aconselho ainda a leitura do texto do jornalista e colunista da revista brasileira, Reinaldo Azevedo, que demonstra que a tradução de Pedro Doria, apresentada por Daniel Oliveira no Arrastão, não é fiel ao original. Para além disso, Reinaldo Azevedo, que é entrevistado na próxima edição da Atlântico, lembra que o texto de Diogo Schelp e Duda Teixeira, publicado por ocasião dos 40 anos da morte de Che Guevara, apresentava diversas fontes. E acusa Anderson de se presumir dono da biografia do guerrilheiro.]
11 Comments
November 29th, 2007 at 0:40
podem vcs publicar a carta original, já que não acreditam no DO?
November 29th, 2007 at 1:44
cala-te ó menos 1. publica tu, se ela existe.
November 29th, 2007 at 2:11
portela menos 1, eu acredito “no DO”, mas também ele pode ter sido enganado pela fonte. Seja como for, continuo a entender que a “Veja” é uma das melhores revistas do mundo, com alguns dos melhores jornalistas do mundo.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:03
Na altura do 40.º aniversário da morte do Che Guevara, a RTP1 passou uma reportagem em que o gajo da CIA que o encontrou passava por mentiroso. O “condutor” do helicóptero desmentia a versão dele e um especialista em fotografia dizia que a foto que ele tirou com o Che era falsa. Alguém viu essa reportagem?
November 29th, 2007 at 13:54
As imprecisões da tradução (que eu já verifiquei) são insignificantes (normais em traduções) e absolutamente irrelevantes para o conteúdo da mesma.
A resposta de Diogo Schelp é absurda (não a publiquei por não sobre o conteúdo da reportagem, que é o relevante para mim), porque acusa o jornalista americano de desrespeito pelas regras das relações entre fonte e imprensa. Absurdo porque Jon Lee Anderson não foi fonte nenhuma da Veja.
Por fim, terei todo o prazer em substituir por outra tradução. Nada de essencial muda, como o PPM honestamente terá de reconhecer.
November 29th, 2007 at 14:25
Dear Diogo,
I was intrigued as to why I never heard back from you when I replied to this email you sent me (see below). And then I saw the article you wrote in Veja, which was the most one-sided perspective on a contemporary political figure I have seen in a long time. It was precisely this kind of highly-editorialized reporting, either hagiographically in favor, or — as in your case — demonizingly against, that led me to write my biography. I sought to put some flesh and blood on Che’s overly-mythified bones in order to understand what kind of person he really was. What you have written is an OpEd piece camouflaged as a piece of accurate journalism, which, of course, it is not. Honest journalism, to my knowledge, involves incorporating different sources of information and perspectives, and attempting to place the person or situation you are writing about into context, so as to educate your readers with at least a semblance of objectivity. What you have done with Che is equivalent to writing about, say, George W. Bush, and relying almost entirely on quotes from Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to bolster your own point of view. I am, glad, in the end, that you did not follow up with me for the interview, because I would have spoken to you in good faith, under the mistaken assumption that you were a serious journalist, and an honest colleague. And In that assumption, I would have been sadly mistaken. Please feel free to publish my letter in Veja if you wish.
Yours, Jon Lee Anderson
Agora diga-me o que muda no debate?
November 29th, 2007 at 14:27
A versão original já está no arrastão
November 29th, 2007 at 15:16
O Reinaldo Azevedo é um tipo que trata os outros por “canalha” e “porco fedorento”. Enfim, nada de muito incomum num certo tipo de imprensa militante sul americana, como a Veja. Parece também que, segundo ele, o Andesron terá ficado tristíssimo com o facto de o não terem entrevistado “está na cara que se sentiu desprestigiado”, diz ele. Ou seja, é uma mancha no curriculum do Anderson não ter sido entrevistado pela Veja. Resta-lhe a fraca consolação de ser um respeitado colaborador da New Yorker… Se o ridículo matasse…
November 29th, 2007 at 15:30
Fica também aqui a tréplica do Anderson
Dear Diogo Schelp:
Thank you for your “kind” reply. (I have learned, thanks to you, that you are in fact a very “kindly” person, because you have pointed it out to me not once, but twice.) And I see now that the misunderstanding that has embroiled us is due entirely to my deeply-flawed character. I should never have assumed, of course, that you had received my initial reply, and then my follow-up email to your article, and simply chosen to ignore them. Obviously you have a very vigorous spam-blocker. Some collegial technical advice: Perhaps you should set your system to “moderate” rather than “extreme”. That is what I have done; and as a result I was able to receive your emails without any trouble at all. Remember, Diogo, “moderate”, not “extreme” — that’s the key.
You charge me with being unethical, and “a bad journalist”. You even question whether I am a journalist at all. Gosh, you ARE angry, aren’t you? In between my guffaws of laughter, let me just pause long enough to say that this, coming from you, is like the pot calling the kettle black. Let us recap for a moment the methodology you used to mislead Veja’s reading public:
You ran a cover story that was heavily illustrated with photos of Che, thus cashing in on the commercial popularity of Guevara’s image in order to sell more copies of your magazine. To flesh out the accompanying text, you cherry-picked a number of previously written accounts, including my own, to bolster your particular thesis, ie, that Che’s heroism is nothing but a Marxist construct, as per your title: “Che: A Farsa do Heroi”.
To come to your earth-shattering conclusion, you also interviewed a total of, by my count, seven people, all but one of whom, an old Bolivian opponent of Che’s, were anti-Castro Cuban exiles, some of them former political prisoners and veterans of various paramilitary campaigns to oust Castro. (By the way, one of them, the academic Jaime Suchlicki, you neglected to mention, is in the pay of the U.S. Government as head of the so-called Cuban Transition Project.) I also notice that you gave special attention to the testimony of Felix Rodriguez, the former CIA agent who oversaw Che’s execution. Does the fact that you showcase him mean that you regard him as your most impressive witness? Or was it because he was the only source whom you actually had a reporter interview in person; the others all seem to have been contacted by Veja over the telephone. Clearly, you have very rigorous reporting standards!
As I said in my “open letter” to you, to write such an article using the kind of sources you did is equivalent to writing a profile of George W. Bush quoting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hugo Chavez. In other words, it is not something that would or should be taken seriously. It is a novelty exercise, something to snicker over, but it is NOT journalism. To tell your readers, as you did in the opening art of the article, that “Veja talked with historians, biographers, former comrades of Che and of the Cuban government” gives the misleading impression that you had actually done your homework, that you were offering your readers a well-rounded piece of journalism that was going to show them something new. Unfortunately, most of what you have written here is sheer propaganda, mere re-hashings of things that have been said and re-said, without much basis, in Miami for the last forty-odd years.
This is not about politics. I wrote a book which, as you yourself have pointed out, is “the most complete biography” written about Che. It contains material which can be used to criticize Che, but there are also aspects of his life and personality which people find admirable. In other word, it is arounded portrait. As I have always said, I wrote my biography as an antidote to the countless propaganda exercises in which the real Che had been buried under a morass of either hagiographical writing, or demonizations, e.g. your article.
Please do not make the mistake of accusing me of defending Che because of my criticism of you. Let’s be clear about this: The real issue here is not Che, it is the quality of your journalism. Your article, quite simply, is just plain bad, and it rankles to see it in the pages of a venerable magazine like Veja. Its readers deserve far better, and whether or not I appear again in its pages, under your helmsmanship, is not a concern to me. What IS a concern is that with so many brilliant journalists in Brazil, Veja has chosen to hire you as its “international editor”.
Best, Jon Lee Anderson
November 29th, 2007 at 16:29
Se a Atlântico trabalha sob o lema do bom jornalismo, seria de elementar bom senso publicar um esclarecimento quer sobre a caricatura de Che-Hitler quer sobre o teor e conteúdo da reportagem. Senão, ficamos seguros que a Atlântico pratica o mesmo tipo de jornalismo rasteiro, falacioso, interesseiro que parece ser timbre de alguns repórteres da Veja; nomeadamente o visado pela carta de Lee Anderson.
Resumindo, ficamos cientes que a Atlântico age de má-fé.
November 29th, 2007 at 16:36
“Nuno”, não o mando passear macacos porque não merece a minha irritação. Qual esclarecimento? Só pode estar a brincar connosco - e com o nome da Atlântico. Já agora: quem lhe dera a si chegar aos calcanhares da “Veja” e da Atlântico. Passe bem.
Leave a Reply