In election years, television interviews with presidential candidates, broadcast live, i.e. without the use of editing, have become an important genre of journalistic representation in Brazilian political campaigns. These interviews are conducted in network studios by well-known Brazilian news anchors. The fact that these interviews are transmitted directly to the electorate in an unedited form is generally offered as a guarantee of a genuine, authentic portrayal of the candidates themselves. The present work proposes that live network candidate interviews, rather than a means of political presentation on television, are actually an arena in which the institution of journalism attempts to use rhetorical and argumentative means to control the candidates’ discourse without relying on the traditional advantages conferred in daily news coverage.

This article examines how political issues are discussed in collaborative environments like Wikipedia. First, the text highlights the importance of digital collaborative initiatives to foster democratic practices. Then, it examines the importance of public debates as a mechanism for producing legitimate decisions. Finally, the article analyses some of the debates hosted at the Wikipedia about the construction of the entry "Dilma Rousseff" after the 2010 elections. There are evidences that the design of forums as well as the commitment of participants are essential to enable discussions that meet the principles of justification and reciprocity.

More than a regime that stormed to Argentina in the 1940s, Peronism is configured as a system of complex ideas and exceptional, a identification (as defined by Beatriz SARLO). This article focuses on the brightest stage og the Justicialism (another name for the period that was Juan Domingo Perón as its greatest exponent), the First Peronism (1946-1955) - and the construction of a policy of spreading the so-called Social Tourism, while one arm of a larger project carried forward by the powerful Central Office of Information (SI, in Spanish). This strategy was fundamentally based on the production and dissemination of posters. On the other hand, the study shows similarities and differences in this field to other regimes of the first half of the 20th century (Salazarism, Francoism, Fascism, Nazism, Stalinism and New Deal). And it shows how the vision of Michel FOUCAULT about the Disciplinary Power was largely present in the peronist Social Tourism.

The aim of this article is to analyze the communication strategies of presidential candidates during the elections held in 2006 and 2010. The focus is on the strategic component of electoral inserts and the methodology consists of investigating how candidates choose to distribute these inserts in the programming of television networks. The results indicate that the candidates pursue different strategies influenced basically by three variables: electoral legislation, their standing in polls and the difference of resources available. In parallel, the article debates the role of the regulation of electoral advertising and how this set of rules influences the level of information of campaigns, the occurrence of attacks, and party strategies. Overall, 2,993 electoral inserts were examined.

A substantial part of the scholarly literature on Veja magazine has pointed to the marked conservative political bias of its journalism, be it when dealing with themes such as public policies or with values and behavior. In other words, Veja rejects the ideal of journalistic neutrality, rhetorically espoused by other news media operations, and practices a journalism that is ridden with opinion. In this article we intend to test the hypothesis that Veja also treats race-based affirmative action with bias, which is openly against these policies. We first conduct a valence analysis of all texts published by the magazine on this issue, from January 2001 to June 2009. Next, we do a content analysis of the main arguments employed against affirmative action, also taking into consideration their temporal evolution. Results show that until 2003 Veja did not have an editorial stance regarding the matter, starting that year, it adopted a clear contrarian point of view that remained constant until the end of the period studies. From 2003 to 2006, the most prevalent arguments accused affirmative action of violating the principles of merit and equality before the law. Around 2006, Veja changes the tone of its discourse, and starts to echo the voices of academics who accused affirmative action of promoting racialization and racial conflict in the country.