Coincidence or fiction – Media & Advertising

António Cunha Vaz, president of CV&A

I write with full awareness of the need for the separation of powers (political, judicial and media) for the proper functioning of democracy.

I have always defended the existence of a strong, competent judicial power and, consequently, guarantees the rights and freedoms of each one of us. I have always defended the condemnation of corrupt, influence dealers and white-collar criminals, just as I have always defended the condemnation of rapists, pedophiles and people who are not people and who use physical force or psychological coercion against the weakest, whether women , children or old people.

I even advocate a revision of the penal code that leads to the aggravation of penalties and the adjustment of penalties to the new reality we are experiencing. Cybercrimes, crimes linked to modern forms of slavery, new drugs, new and sophisticated forms of corruption and money laundering, deserve proper treatment by qualified professionals in the various stages of the process that ultimately lead to freedom or to condemn someone. Because justice must be the ultimate goal of law enforcement. Only in this way is democracy fulfilled.

Justice and its entire process cannot be in the hands of vigilantes or avengers, they cannot be in the hands of someone who wants to be a police officer, a public prosecutor, an investigating judge and, at the same time, a judge who dictates the sentence and judges appeals. The possibility of someone taking advantage of these powers endangers the essence of democracy: the rights of citizens.

The good name and dignity of citizens cannot be called into question by any pre-campaign television commentator for any political office. I know that audiences are won over with fracturing themes and that mentioning the names of those who are not present to defend themselves, accusing everyone and everything without having to prove anything, brings an audience.

And when the coincidence of interests between a frustrated researcher and a populist with pretensions to politics happens, the worst of worlds is born.

And if, by way of television commentary, everything seems to be allowed, under the broad hat of freedom of opinion, I leave three questions to which I would like to have an answer: how is the honorability of a person whose name and image are shown on televisions restored? , newspapers and magazines as a potential criminal? What is the difference between a criminal and an innocent? How does someone live whose profession should be to defend the innocent and contribute to condemning criminals when they see others on a large television audience show the name of several citizens without presenting any evidence?

The world we live in is not one of affection. It is about media charities. It is of hatred, envy and rejoicing in the evil of others. But it is good to be cautious. One can only know what it costs to be judged in the media when it happens to someone very close to us. And the Earth is round.

Everything that happens today seems to be summed up in a dispute like ‘I arrested more bandits than you’ or ‘I am more demagogic or populist than you’. It would be sad if one day it were proved that much of what is published in the media about ongoing legal proceedings comes from judicial sources. It would be sadder and more revealing of a democracy with dictatorial hints if all this happened only to massage the ego of any prosecutor or investigating judge in competition with a colleague or to serve as a launching pad for a presidential campaign condemned to fail.

But, of course, none of this happens. It’s all coincidence. Pure fiction.

* By António Cunha Vaz, president of CV&A




Coincidence or fiction – Media & Advertising

António Cunha Vaz, president of CV&A

I write with full awareness of the need for the separation of powers (political, judicial and media) for the proper functioning of democracy.

I have always defended the existence of a strong, competent judicial power and, consequently, guarantees the rights and freedoms of each one of us. I have always defended the condemnation of corrupt, influence dealers and white-collar criminals, just as I have always defended the condemnation of rapists, pedophiles and people who are not people and who use physical force or psychological coercion against the weakest, whether women , children or old people.

I even advocate a revision of the penal code that leads to the aggravation of penalties and the adjustment of penalties to the new reality we are experiencing. Cybercrimes, crimes linked to modern forms of slavery, new drugs, new and sophisticated forms of corruption and money laundering, deserve proper treatment by qualified professionals in the various stages of the process that ultimately lead to freedom or to condemn someone. Because justice must be the ultimate goal of law enforcement. Only in this way is democracy fulfilled.

Justice and its entire process cannot be in the hands of vigilantes or avengers, they cannot be in the hands of someone who wants to be a police officer, a public prosecutor, an investigating judge and, at the same time, a judge who dictates the sentence and judges appeals. The possibility of someone taking advantage of these powers endangers the essence of democracy: the rights of citizens.

The good name and dignity of citizens cannot be called into question by any pre-campaign television commentator for any political office. I know that audiences are won over with fracturing themes and that mentioning the names of those who are not present to defend themselves, accusing everyone and everything without having to prove anything, brings an audience.

And when the coincidence of interests between a frustrated researcher and a populist with pretensions to politics happens, the worst of worlds is born.

And if, by way of television commentary, everything seems to be allowed, under the broad hat of freedom of opinion, I leave three questions to which I would like to have an answer: how is the honorability of a person whose name and image are shown on televisions restored? , newspapers and magazines as a potential criminal? What is the difference between a criminal and an innocent? How does someone live whose profession should be to defend the innocent and contribute to condemning criminals when they see others on a large television audience show the name of several citizens without presenting any evidence?

The world we live in is not one of affection. It is about media charities. It is of hatred, envy and rejoicing in the evil of others. But it is good to be cautious. One can only know what it costs to be judged in the media when it happens to someone very close to us. And the Earth is round.

Everything that happens today seems to be summed up in a dispute like ‘I arrested more bandits than you’ or ‘I am more demagogic or populist than you’. It would be sad if one day it were proved that much of what is published in the media about ongoing legal proceedings comes from judicial sources. It would be sadder and more revealing of a democracy with dictatorial hints if all this happened only to massage the ego of any prosecutor or investigating judge in competition with a colleague or to serve as a launching pad for a presidential campaign condemned to fail.

But, of course, none of this happens. It’s all coincidence. Pure fiction.

* By António Cunha Vaz, president of CV&A