A newspaper that backed coups now calls us government propaganda
In the long and contested terrain of Brazilian press history, two outlets clashed in late March 2023 over something deeper than a presidential interview. When Folha de S. Paulo dismissed Brasil 247 as a 'government website' for its coverage of President Lula's allegations against former judge Sergio Moro, Brasil 247 answered not merely with a denial, but with a counter-history — one in which Folha itself stands accused of backing coups and serving concentrated power. The dispute asks, as such disputes always do, who gets to define legitimacy, and who has earned the right to speak truth.
- Folha de S. Paulo's editorial branding of Brasil 247 as state propaganda struck at the outlet's core claim to journalistic credibility.
- At stake is Lula's explosive accusation that Sergio Moro was involved in a 'setup' — a frame-up tied to alleged PCC threats — a claim Folha dismissed but Brazil's leading legal outlet, Conjur, found credible on the very same day.
- Brasil 247 escalated the confrontation by invoking Folha's editorial history, charging the newspaper with having supported both the 1964 military coup and the 2016 impeachment of Dilma Rousseff.
- The exchange has hardened into a battle over institutional memory itself — each outlet positioning the other as the corrupted voice, and itself as the defender of Brazilian democracy.
On a Saturday morning in late March 2023, Brasil 247 published a pointed rebuttal to a Folha de S. Paulo editorial titled 'The Worst of Political Gamesmanship,' which had criticized an interview President Lula gave to four of Brasil 247's journalists. Folha's central charge was dismissive: it labeled Brasil 247 a 'government website,' implying the outlet was state propaganda rather than independent journalism.
Brasil 247 rejected the characterization forcefully, describing itself as an independent outlet staffed by seasoned journalists from Brazil's most respected newsrooms, committed to national sovereignty, democratic values, and economic development. The response framed Folha's attack as not only inaccurate but hypocritical.
The substance of the dispute centered on Lula's use of the word 'armação' — a setup — to describe how alleged PCC threats had been handled, and the role of Senator Sergio Moro, the former judge who had overseen Lula's since-annulled corruption conviction. Folha criticized Lula for making the claim. But on the same day, Conjur, Brazil's largest legal news site, published analysis suggesting the case had indeed been routed through a judge closely associated with Moro, lending credibility to Lula's framing.
Brasil 247 used that convergence to press a broader historical indictment: Folha, it argued, had supported the 1964 military coup, backed the 2016 impeachment of Dilma Rousseff as a legitimate act, and championed economic policies that brought hardship to ordinary Brazilians. What began as a quarrel over interview coverage revealed itself as something older and larger — a fight over which version of Brazil's recent past is true, and which press institution has the moral standing to tell it.
On a Saturday morning in late March, Brasil 247 published a sharp rebuttal to an editorial that had appeared in Folha de S. Paulo the day before. The Folha piece, titled "The Worst of Political Gamesmanship," had criticized an interview that President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva had given to four journalists from Brasil 247's television operation: Leonardo Attuch, Helena Chagas, Tereza Cruvinel, and Luís Costa Pinto. The Folha editorial had dismissed Brasil 247 as a "government website"—a term meant to suggest the outlet was little more than state propaganda, a mouthpiece rather than a news organization.
Brasil 247's response was direct and unsparing. The outlet described itself as an independent news site staffed by some of Brazil's most accomplished journalists, many of whom had worked at the country's most prestigious newsrooms. The characterization as a government mouthpiece, the statement argued, was both inaccurate and hypocritical. Brasil 247 said it stood for national sovereignty, Brazilian culture, economic development, and full democracy—values it claimed the Folha did not share.
The disagreement had teeth because of what Lula had said in the interview. The president had used the word "armação"—a setup, a frame-up—to describe the circumstances around alleged threats made by the PCC, a major criminal organization, and the role played by Sergio Moro, the former judge who had presided over Lula's corruption trial and was now a senator. Moro had been a central figure in the legal proceedings that led to Lula's conviction and imprisonment in 2018, before those convictions were annulled. The Folha editorial had criticized Lula for making this claim about Moro.
But on the same day Brasil 247 published its response, Conjur—Brazil's largest legal news website—published analysis suggesting that Lula's characterization was accurate. The case involving the alleged PCC threats had indeed been handled in an unusual way, Conjur reported, landing in the hands of Judge Gabriela Hardt, who had worked closely with Moro. The circumstances did appear, by Conjur's account, to constitute a setup of the kind Lula had described.
Brasil 247 used this timing to underscore what it saw as the Folha's fundamental problem: not just bias in the present moment, but a long historical record. The Folha, Brasil 247 stated, had supported the 1964 military coup that overthrew Brazil's democracy. It had also backed the 2016 impeachment of President Dilma Rousseff, which Brasil 247 characterized as a coup d'état. The newspaper had championed the "bridge to the future," a policy agenda that Brasil 247 blamed for bringing misery and underdevelopment to the country.
What emerged from this exchange was not simply a disagreement about how to cover a presidential interview. It was a clash between two different understandings of what had happened in Brazil's recent past, what the country's institutions had done, and who could be trusted to tell the truth about it. For Brasil 247, the Folha's criticism of the Lula interview was inseparable from decades of editorial choices that, in Brasil 247's view, had consistently sided with Brazil's most powerful interests against the country's democratic future.
Citas Notables
Brasil 247 is an independent outlet defending national sovereignty, Brazilian culture, economic development, and full democracy—values that distance it from the Folha— Brasil 247 statement
Lula was correct in calling the circumstances around the alleged PCC threats case a setup, with the case landing in the hands of a judge close to Moro in an unusual way— Conjur analysis
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why did the Folha call Brasil 247 a government website? What specifically triggered that?
The Folha was responding to an interview Lula gave to Brasil 247 where he said Sergio Moro had set him up—that the whole legal case against him was orchestrated. The Folha editorial attacked that framing as political theater.
And Brasil 247 says the Folha is wrong to attack it?
Not just wrong—hypocritical. Brasil 247 argues it's an independent outlet with serious journalists, while the Folha has a history of backing coups and policies that harmed Brazil. The label "government website" is meant to delegitimize, but Brasil 247 sees the Folha as the one without credibility.
But did Lula actually have a point about Moro?
That's the thing. On the same day Brasil 247 responded, Brazil's main legal news site published analysis saying yes, Lula was right. The case did end up with a judge close to Moro in suspicious circumstances. So the Folha's editorial looked poorly timed.
So this is really about who gets to define what happened in Brazil's past?
Exactly. The Folha backed the 1964 coup and the 2016 impeachment. Brasil 247 sees those as fundamental betrayals. When the Folha attacks Brasil 247 now, it's not just about one interview—it's about two outlets with completely different readings of Brazilian history.
Does the average reader know about the Folha's historical positions?
Some do. But that's part of what Brasil 247 is trying to surface here. It's saying: before you dismiss us as government propaganda, remember who you're hearing that from and what they've supported.