Hasn’t this been known for a long time?

The agenda-setting theory is already quite old and was explained by Maxwell McCombs and Donald Shaw, in 1972, in the book The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media. There it is explained that the media do not tell the public what to think, but rather what they should think about.

We have known this for a long time, but we accept that André Ventura makes immigration, crime or “subsidy dependence” central topics in the news. Health, housing, wages, taxes, labor laws or war become secondary issues.

There are so many around me who have studied the theory of framing (framing), initially defined in 1954 by Gregory Bateson and which, combined in the 70s with the theory of primingargues that the representation of a social phenomenon as a “threat” or “injustice” shapes the way the public understands it, even if there is no real threat or injustice there.

However, we covered the systematic association between “immigration” and “crime”, “subsidies” and “insecurity”, which André Ventura constructed to activate a moral framework of fear and resentment.

Murray Edelman, also in the distant year of 1964, in the book The Symbolic Uses of Politicsexplained that political leaders construct images and rituals that satisfy collective emotions more than rational arguments.

Ventura understood this logic. Yours outdoors provocations, like “This is not Bangladesh”, communicate to his voters that he is “one of us” against “them”: the system, the privileged, the foreigners.

Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman wrote, in 1988, Manufacturing Consentwhere they claim that the media reproduce the interests of power.

Ventura reverses this idea and presents himself as a victim of this media power, accusing journalists of censorship and manipulation. It’s a counter-agenda: by attacking the media, he forces them to talk about him.

We’ve known all this for decades – it’s been studied, debated, documented – and yet André Ventura continues to successfully use all these old propaganda techniques and puts on a show full of conflict, drama, basic language, short statements. The press, which lives on urgency and controversy, on the hunt for an audience, “eats” all this pap.

What to do?… I have a suggestion:

When André Ventura talks about “Salazar”, we should answer “work package”.

When André Ventura talks about “gypsies”, we should answer “work package”.

When André Ventura talks about “corruption”, we should respond “labor package”.

When André Ventura talks about “system”, we should answer “work package”.

When André Ventura talks about “dependent benefits”, we should answer “work package”.

When André Ventura talks about “insecurity”, we should respond “work package”.

When André Ventura says “This is not Bangladesh”, we should respond “labor package”.

When André Ventura talks about “burkas”, we should answer “work package”.

When André Ventura speaks of a “rotten Republic”, we should respond “labor package”.

When André Ventura talks about “bandalheira”, we should answer “work package”.

Anyway, when André Ventura opens his mouth, we should respond “labor package” and, instead of fussing with him, leave him to shout alone – and first confront Luís Montenegro: he is interfering in our lives with the new labor laws that he intends to approve, probably with the support of André Ventura, who is very quiet about this.

Journalist