O tema do patrimonialismo na mídia brasileira: um estudo de caso dos jornais Folha de São Paulo e O Globo (2016-2021)

Abstract

The present dissertation consists of an analysis on the theme of patrimonialism in the two largest circulation newspapers in Brazil, namely Folha de São Paulo and O Globo. Columns and editorials published from January 2016, the month when the Leftist government fell and the Center rose to power, until December 2021, a period in which the Right was in power, were scrutinized. For the purpose of this dissertation, 122 newspaper articles were analyzed from both newspapers, comprising 69 columns from Folha de São Paulo and 53 from O Globo, along with 40 editorials from both newspapers, including 16 from Folha de São Paulo and 24 from O Globo. The study aims to provide a sociological analysis of how patrimonialism evolved from a sociological concept to become an integral part of the media-public debate. Through this investigation, the dynamics established among the media, political, and sociological spheres are examined to identify points of convergence and divergence between these fields. The analysis of editorial columns, central to public communication, proves essential in revealing the stance of journalists affiliated with media conglomerate and even the opinion of newspapers through editorials. From the conducted analysis, prevalent arguments were identified and, drawing on the Grounded Theory of data, these arguments were categorized into three main groups: Political-moral Argument, Conceptual Argument, and Economic Argument. Several software tools, such as ATLAS.ti, were employed for data coding and categorization in the research. Additionally, the Python programming language was utilized for data scraping. Despite being distinct newspapers, a significant alignment is observed between them, along with a noticeable prioritization of arguments to characterize patrimonialism and its current development. Thus, this finding supports the argument that investigating columns and editorials allows for the identification of diverse opinions that communication institutions advocate in the public debate.