Digital productions in the 50 years of the 1964’s coup d’état: Multimedia special issues in Brazilian journalistic websites

Introduction

Journalism is thought of as the first draft of history and collective memory (Palacios, 2009, 2014; Zelizer, 2008), since journalists work daily with the recording and diffusion of current events, presenting what they consider relevant at that time for society. The past, through history and memory, is not only evidenced in this way, but it also addresses current events, so as to have a broad and deep understanding of events in their complexity. Historians, especially in societies where the media have central functions, come to regard the media, the newspaper and their productions as the historical and memorial source of a given space and time. Evidentially, these professionals do not disregard the intentions these products had when they were developed, since the agents want crystallization and stabilization of their perspectives.

In the latest modality of journalism, that is, its digital version, (cyber) space where memory presents itself in a new paradigm, the past gains more attention in the information productive system, according to Hoskins (2009, 2011a, 2011b), Neiger et al. (2011) and Reading (2011). There is a kind of transition from collective to connected or mediatic memory, since the association between media and memory changes when considering the new ways of remembering, silencing and forgetting in a digital and global system. The infrastructural changes of memories in digital archives are enhanced for a construction that allows the acquisition of new specificities and accumulations of content, a kind of memory on-the-fly (Hoskins, 2009).

The traditional materialities of memories are now confronted by elements of fluidity, reproducibility and transference, situating new temporalities and dynamics in permanent indexation and organization to the detriment of the predecessor ideal of the somewhat static archive. These digitized documents go through a long-tailed logic of the past, collaborating to build collective memory and relational dynamics between newer and older media, helping to characterize a new media and memory ecology. The link between memory and journalism happens in the act of its production process, practice and product; if journalism emphasizes the current in its routine, it is adequately related to memory, since, even when turned to the past, it is a singular and concrete present with a view to what no longer exists. Journalism makes this news the first record of the past. The daily archiving and indexing of this daily journalistic production transforms its products into collective and media memories of a given space and time. Journalistic productions, above all, become documents of a historical period, a complex network of memories and forgetfulness of those times that are no longer present (Machado, 2001; Palacios, 2009, 2014; Sá, 2011; Zelizer, 2008).

This perspective appears so predominantly that memory is one of the most emphasized aspects of digital journalism in relation to journalistic productions in other media. It is defined as multiple – due to the possibility of access to the various media formats –, instantaneous – accessible by the producer and reader through links – and cumulative – thanks to its low archiving cost (Palacios, 2002, 2003, 2008, 2014). If journalism is sometimes perceived as ephemeral, with a short shelf life of its material, the content is now possibly in a continuous present. Journalism works the individual, collective or even media memory in an increasingly strategic way, bringing the information and past documents in a new productive structure. The media acquire this position of relevance because the memories are transmitted through them, acting as the first vehicle for transmitting knowledge and perceptions about the past and the present. If the era of mass communication was the era of collective memory, conceptually and experimentally, today we live in an age of connected and digital memory, not just collective.

Media memory contributes to an individual, social and even time organization, with programming grid, and emphasizes, in a multidimensional way, the way the media operates as an agent of memory, the culture in which the processes take place and the interactions relations between media and other activities and social institutions (Neiger et al., 2011; Nunes, 2001). The means of communication still become builders of memories, not just their diffusers. They have, in contemporary Western societies, an essential role in the production and maintenance of history and memories – even individual ones.

The media, specifically journalism, have already contributed, for example, to creating an enabling environment for the ousting of Brazil’s president in 1964 (Cardoso, 2012; Delgado, 2010; Ferreira, 2003; Ferreira and Gomes, 2014; Fico, 2004, 2005; Koshiyama, 1988; Machado, 2014; Reis, 2014; Reis et al., 2014; Ridenti, 2014). In an investigation of the opinion texts of the major newspapers from 1961 to 1964, Machado (2014) argues that the 1964 coup cannot be expressed as military or civil-military, but as media-civil-military, since, without the work of the press, the deposition of the president would have no legitimacy. This favourable environment was built daily by telling the people what to think about Jango, emphasizing what was negative and even inventing what didn’t exist, with journalists even calling him ‘drunk’. The media, in general, accused João Goulart and his allies of exaggerate propaganda and provoke the military.

In 2011, President Dilma Rousseff sanctioned Law n° 12.528, for the creation of the National Commission of the Truth, which investigated and made public the human rights violations from 1946 to 1988 committed by state agents in Brazil. The processes of recognition, revision and repair of the history of the coup and the military dictatorship, even though they existed during the period of repression, they intensified with that law, which became an agent in the battles of memories about the Brazilian military dictatorship. It was in this favourable context of historical retraction that the journals produced their specials.

More than 50 years later of the coup, the media is even more relevant in contemporary societies, as are memories – due to digitization, they have new specificities and recurrence procedures. With this in mind, an investigation into the celebration of the fiftieth anniversary of the coup in this latest (cyber) space media presents a conjunction of propitious factors, especially taking the digital journalistic special issues as a case study. The perspective of the battles of memories (Blanchard and Veyrat-Masson, 2008a, 2008b; Lindenberg, 1994; Stora, 2007), in which the past is always used politically, especially by the media, made it possible to observe the multimedia special issues from the description and articulation of three instances: actors – people or technologies involved; battle territories – survey of issues and contradictions; and weapons – how the issues are presented by the actors, contributing or not to the stabilization of their perspectives.

For this, we selected the productions of journalistic websites of vehicles already relevant in the period of the coup and the dictatorship, such as Folha de S. Paulo and O Estado de S. Paulo, both supporters of the 1964’s coup and two digital era productions, which appeared in the 2000s: portal G1, of the largest media group in the country, which supported not only the coup but the dictatorship through its other vehicles, and the Último Segundo, journalistic sector of the iG portal, one of the main of its kind in the country today, but without tradition in the field of information, although it tries to honour, at least in name, the leftist media vehicle Última Hora. Thus, the purpose of this article is to evaluate the role of digital journalistic productions in the constitution and stabilization of the history of the 1964’s coup through the multimedia special about the celebration of its fiftieth anniversary, since the digitalisations’ of memory and of journalism bring new settings for both.

Folha de S. Paulo

The multimedia narrative ‘Everything about the military dictatorship’ begins with a bold text describing our recent democracy as ‘unable to pacify the controversies of the period’ and with the presentation of former presidents directly involved in the fight against dictatorship, forgetting José Sarney, the first president after the dictatorship, who had a direct relationship with the military authoritarian regime. With a staff of nearly 30 people, the issue addresses 21 years of repression through an eight-section menu (Introduction; The crisis; The dictatorship; The economy; The opening; The Reckoning; What if. . .; Articles), an expedient and an extensive list of sources and references – including books and links to interview audios and even English transcripts.

The idea of coup and dictatorship appears as the history to be told, to be relied upon throughout the special issue, although in rare parts there is complacency with some of the military’s arguments, especially in the opinionated texts of the last two sections. The only moments when the coup and dictatorship appear positive are in the video testimonials of the military and former politicians who supported them, publicizing the perspectives of these sources. However, the emphasis on individual memories ¹ , that is, of the deponents, fell more to those who opposed the authoritarian regime, since on both occasions of the video almost 70% of the testimonials were intended for this perspective.

The knowledge of the versions of the history is usually obtained from the view of the winners, although this perspective cannot be verified in its completeness during the period of the Brazilian military dictatorship (Rollemberg, 2006). The military believe that, after the defeat of the left, the militants strove to win in the field of letters what they lost in the weapon – that is, in the propagation of memories and in the historiographical constitution of the military dictatorship. Le Goff (2013) says that the losers react to the ‘rational stories’ of the winners through a ‘tradition as a means of refusal’, a ‘slow history’, that is, a form of opposition and resistance. In the battles of memories, interests and ideologies collide to convey a message to the next generations, whether true or not. The intention is to crystallize their memories by making them officials. To Blanchard and Veyrat-Masson (2008b), memory must be seen as a political weapon that aims to fix ideological perspectives.

The narrative of virtually the whole special issue is distinct from that of the journalistic standard, with inverted pyramid hierarchy ² and extensive quotation from interviewed sources; in fact it has a chronological structure and almost no citation – restricted to short testimonial videos, the only space in which individual memory prevails. As there is little direct or indirect citation in the special issue, one of its sections is intended for the ‘Sources and References’ used for its production, with a more historical and didactic character. Among the references there are books in Portuguese and conversations of USA Presidents John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson with their advisers at the White House.

The historical production of the newspaper itself was hardly used, cited only in an opinion article, which explained the performance of the main media during the coup and the early years of the dictatorship. It should be noted that the publications of Folha de S. Paulo or of the other vehicles mentioned in this text were not available, that is, the digitization of these materials from the military dictatorship period – already found in the collection or archives sections of the websites of the country’s major newspapers and communication groups – they are nonexistent in this special issue. The newspaper, for example, supported the 1964 coup and collaborated with the military immediately after the enactment of AI-5, by firing several journalists; one of the main actions to avoid suffering censorships and sanctions. The group was also marked by their trucks set on fire in 1971, as they were lent to the military to carry civilians and militants to prison, where they were interrogated, tortured and murdered. The owner, Otávio Frias de Oliveira, on September 22, 1971, defends the dictatorship and denies not only the existence of torture and murder, but political prisoners (Dias, 2014, 2015).

The historical journalistic production about the coup and the authoritarian regime instituted by the military appears, in fact, only in one video, a report of TV Cultura about Diretas Já – Direct Elections Now was a manifestation that demanded direct elections with the end of the military dictatorship. Other historical productions in this format are available, however, closer to advisory material since they came from the military government. The Institute for Research and Social Studies (IPES) and the Brazilian Institute for Democratic Action (IBAD) carried out, in favour of the coup and the military dictatorship, a political-ideological propaganda with support even in the National Congress, in addition to material and financial for demonstrations, manifestations and audiovisual productions.

The special issue features a wide variety of media formats, as it is typical of multimedia narratives ³ . The more than thirty photos, for example, always represent historical situations, such as the inauguration of military presidents and President Tancredo Neves, but mainly of atrocities and crimes committed by the military, exposing the cruelty in the persecution, torture and deaths of Carlos Marighella, Carlos Lamarca, Vladimir Herzog, guerrilla soldiers in Araguaia, among others. Relevant images of events were also published, such as the car bomb during a concert at Riocentro, showing ‘how far the military right was willing to get to stop the opening process’, as the explosive was ‘planted by the military’, and movements, such as the Reforms’ Rally, the Family’s March with God for Freedom and Diretas Já. The photos are generally sourced from the collections of Abril, Folha and Globo Groups, as well as Jornal do Brasil and Última Hora newspapers.

All four audios in the special issue are historic, from the military’s radio campaign to speeches and testimonials by politicians and military at relevant moments, such as Auro de Moura Andrade, Senator and President of Congress, Jarbas Passarinho, Minister of Labor, and Ernesto Geisel, military man and former president. The special issue features almost fifty videos, of which about ten are historical – records and productions of the dictatorship, made by the government or its opponents, as well as a video report above-mentioned – and the remainder composed of current testimonials from intellectuals, journalists, politicians, militants and the military, talking about the reasons that led Jango to be deposed and the deponents’ main memories about the military dictatorship. Unlike in the early 1960s, when journalism developed an environment in which it was not only inevitable, but the deposition of President João Goulart was necessary (Delgado, 2010; Ferreira, 2003; Ferreira and Gomes, 2014; Fico, 2004, 2005; Koshiyama, 1988; Machado, 2014; Reis, 2014; Reis et al., 2014; Ridenti, 2014), attacks on Jango are now said to be exaggerated or liars.

The special issue also featured more than 20 infographics, three of which addressed Institutional Acts 1, 2 and 5; and almost half addressed economic issues. The most complex and interactive infographics, in turn, dealt with the atrocities and crimes against human rights committed by the military during the dictatorship, as ‘Dead on the wrong way’ with information on all 356 people officially considered dead and missing.

O Estado de S. Paulo

The special issue called ‘All about 1964’ has seven featured stories on the slide and ten more productions below, all with thumbnails, on a standard page dedicated to the fiftieth anniversary of the coup. Of the 17 productions, only two do not bring historical images to prominence: they are articles with the views of former presidents José Sarney and Fernando Henrique Cardoso on the military dictatorship and its influences today. The six productions at the end of the page are subdivided into two themes: ‘Press Censorship’ and ‘Torture’. Only one was left out of our analysis, as it was the reproduction of the documentary O dia que durou 21 anos (The day that lasted 21 years).

The idea of the coup and dictatorship is quite conformable in the publications, although on several occasions the productions are condescending to some of the military arguments, especially about the ‘dangerous’ Jango and Brizola and a possible communist threat. Similar to what happened in the early 1960s, the newspaper still brings the idea that João Goulart could have given a communist coup, now considered baseless, but endorsed by the newspaper in the past (Delgado, 2010; Ferreira, 2003; Ferreira and Gomes, 2014; Fico, 2004, 2005; Koshiyama, 1988; Machado, 2014; Reis, 2014; Reis et al., 2014; Ridenti, 2014). Each production aimed to publicize the versions of the sources interviewed, with a strict emphasis on the memoirs of the deponents – in favor of or against the action of the military – or of the text’s writer, in the case of those in the mold of opinion articles. However, the US support for the coup and the military is evident throughout the production, cited on many different occasions and with productions for this purpose. US rulers have contributed financially to the president’s opponents to campaign in the National Congress (Ferreira and Gomes, 2014; Reis et al., 2014).

The first text has a more historical and didactic aspect, with a chronological narrative – different from the journalistic model with inverted pyramid hierarchy – and almost no quotation, similar to multimedia narratives, even though Estadão does not have a special issue of this kind. This is evident later, when accessing the other productions – most of them in report format, with a hierarchical structure of a standard journalistic text, or opinion article –, with the sources being cited as the journalist’s basis and foundation, from researchers to individuals who experienced the coup and military dictatorship, especially politicians – especially two former presidents above-mentioned – and former military personnel. Individual memory prevailed as the main basis for publications, even though books, laws, official documents and specialists are present.

The media formats of the special issue brought, from the digitization, historical contents mainly from Estado Group itself. The only infographic tells the story of the coup and the dictatorship from a self-reference of O Estado de S. Paulo’s historical productions. The videos, in turn, are current productions, with testimonials of former military and former presidents, with just 30 seconds of initial filming of the coup and the declaration of vacancy of the Presidency. Whereas the audios provided are from historical moments coming from Radio Jornal do Brasil – from another media company –, especially from the first decade of the military dictatorship, the photographs are almost all historical from the Estado Group’s own collection or from personal collections belonging to the Estadão Archive. These photos, however, were not in the productions, but in the main page headlines, with few current ones, such as those for interviews with former presidents and another for a recent article with data about torture, with individuals speaking out in front of an unidentified location.

The historical perspective even appears in textual format, revealing dialogues from the dictatorship period, especially in the last two sections: ‘Censorship to the press’ and ‘Torture’. These reproductions were intended to convey the reader to the violence committed by the military and its supporters against the vehicle’s source victims – as the tortured military and the Estado Group owners themselves – such as the dialogue between military agents who voluntarily served DOI-CODI. The violence perpetrated by the state repressive agents gained particular attention in this special issue. Although the newspaper supported the coup on the grounds that the president did not have sufficient authority to command the country (Machado, 2014), when it realized that military intervention would not be transitory, it turned against the military dictatorship and began to report crimes as disappearance, torture and murder, suffering much censorship in part of the authoritarian regime.

Portal G1

The ‘50 Years of the 1964’s Military Coup’ is an interactive multimedia special issue with three great narratives. The first is about ‘Brazil Pre-64’, followed by an explanation of ‘The 33-Day Coup’ – longer and as a central and standard tab when opening the special issue – and the ‘Who’s Who’ of those involved with the dictatorship. In total, nine professionals dedicated themselves to editing, designing, developing and researching the special issue that had as sources books and public archives and documents.

The conception of coup and dictatorship permeates most of the multimedia narrative, with compromise, at various times, with the military, as in the case of João Goulart’s inauguration after the resignation of Jânio Quadros. It seems that there was no pressure from Jango and his supporter and brother-in-law Brizola; in other words, as if future state repressive agents decided to be legalistic to maintain the harmony of the country and Congress. The production was quite complacent every time they could blame Jango with his leftist and communist bias as it could justify the coup in these situations. As it was said, the president tried to ‘radicalize’ politics by trying to approve the ‘basic reforms ‘by law or by force,’’ thus ‘his measures ended up being ammunition for the opponents who planned the coup’. These perspectives are in line with what happened in the early 1960s, now considered baseless, when newspapers endorsed the coup (Delgado, 2010; Ferreira, 2003; Ferreira and Gomes, 2014; Fico, 2004, 2005; Koshiyama, 1988; Machado, 2014; Reis, 2014; Reis et al., 2014; Ridenti, 2014).

Here, however, no individual memories were used for this – as they did not appear poignantly, except for the quotations featured once in ‘every day’ of the main part in ‘The Coup in 33 Days’. Therefore, that is the line of the special issue producers. Still, the emphasis of the production was on the characters involved with the events, that is, on the people who supported or fought the coup and the military dictatorship. This appears in all three major parts: in ‘Brazil Pre-64’, with an emphasis on Jânio and Jango; in ‘The Coup in 33 days’, highlighting every day for ‘Involved’ and ‘Who Supported’; and in ‘Who’s Who’, with the explicit ‘pro-Jango’ and ‘pro-coup’ linked to the Armed Forces, Government, Parties, Church, USA, Movements, entities and unions.

The low use of citations is combined with a chronological narrative structure, different from the current journalism paradigm, which values a hierarchy based on the inverted pyramid logic and a large number of citations from the interviewed sources. As they do not follow this logic, the tone of the text becomes more historical and didactic, with the sources and references observed only in the final part of the special issue – not in the body of the text, as in the reports and other traditional journalistic productions, except the ten featured citations. The newspapers are key historical sources in this multimedia narrative, especially in the ‘On the newsstands’ section, where the covers of four of the major print newspapers of the military dictatorship are digitized: Correio da Manhã, Folha de S. Paulo, Jornal do Brasil and O Globo. From the ten dates mentioned in the special issue with something relevant related to the coup and the early days of the dictatorship, the cover pages of some of these vehicles were published, demonstrating how the events were published and reverberated the following day by the media of the time. Journalism is considered the first draft of history and serves as a source for historians (Ferreira and Gomes, 2014; Palacios, 2003, 2009, 2014; Zelizer, 2008).

The more than 70 historical images, even though most of them show characters involved in or against the coup and dictatorship – since this is the emphasis of this multimedia narrative – come mostly – almost 70% – from the major media groups, with 16 from Globo Group, 17 from Estado Group and 14 from Folha Group. Still, 18 are historical images of character disclosure. The three audios are historical: call for ‘reforms’ rally’ with João Goulart and Rubens Paiva’s appeal to defend Jango – both from national public radio – and Auro de Moura Andrade’s declaration of presidency vacancy. The four videos are also historical but bring the same perspective: inauguration of Castello Branco and ‘propaganda by the military’; therefore, they are not news reports, but productions similar to those made by agencies, albeit more persuasive. The six charts that appear in ‘Brazil Pre-64’ are simple, bar or pie charts, and based on Ibope surveys or one of the three above-mentioned books. The memoirs also appear in explicit textual format, especially with direct quotations highlighted from ‘Involved’ in the section ‘The Coup in 33 Days’. In total, 9 of the 10 days emphasized have memorial highlights in text, taken from the event itself recorded in audio or video, official document or even journalistic material.

Portal iG – Último Segundo

The special about the ‘50 years of the coup’ unravels ‘the military action that plunged the country into 21 years of dictatorship’. Already at the opening, Jango ‘found himself isolated’ in front of the ‘coup agents’ and their ‘troops’ leaving Minas Gerais with the support of the United States through ‘Operation Brother Sam’. The title and subtitle of the special issue on the Portal iG, through its news website Último Segundo, demonstrate a negatively charged framing of the event in its fiftieth anniversary by using words like ‘coup’ and ‘dictatorship’, even with that word being the access link for the special issue. There is no indulgence or understanding with the military’s view or memories of their supporters, as they do not appear. As explained earlier, this idea is in line with the conception of Rollemberg (2006), for whom the left won the battle of the memories narratives. From April 1st – the second day addressed in the special –, the position becomes even more evident when narrating the persecution of President João Goulart.

The emphasis of Último Segundo’s production is on the US relationship with the coup and dictatorship, since the military had the ‘endorsement of the US government’. This is not only evident in the section ‘Operation BROTHER Sam’ – on the preparation and support of the US military for the establishment and maintenance of the authoritarian military regime in Brazil – but since the opening of the special, with part of the subtitle that states: ‘Coup supporters also had the United States by their side, with Operation Brother Sam’. Presidents Kennedy and Johnson intended to ‘guarantee the coup agents would win’. As already mentioned, US rulers have contributed financially to the president’s opponents to campaign in the National Congress (Ferreira and Gomes, 2014; Reis et al., 2014).

The special issue does not have a narrative similar to those of traditional journalistic productions, with a textual hierarchy defined from the inverted pyramid with direct and indirect citations of sources. On the contrary, there is a more historical and didactic structure, with a chronological narrative and no quotation, except for a historical audio by Moura Andrade about the inauguration of Interim President Ranieri Mazzilli, after declaring the presidency vacant. Besides not finding citations, there is no identification of references in any part of the production.

Of the special media formats, only one has the explicit source, which is the only video available on the first date. The filming of TV Câmara (public) brings a sad tone to inform that on this day the military troops ousted the president João Goulart. In total there are 18 historical images, of which 12 are official photos of the ‘Coup Characters’. The other six are in the section ‘Operation BROTHER SAM’ and in each segment of the dates. The infographics appear in map form, in the first three dates and their subdivisions, through the path taken by the military troops and João Goulart’s. In the section about the US, there are two more: a map with the path the US troops would follow in case of resistance to the coup and another detailing the weapons and the US army. It is worth reiterating the importance given to the US role in the coup and the dictatorship with the subtitle text and opening image of the special issue, as well as a specific section with one more historical photo and two infographics, relevant mainly due to the development of few multimedia resources in the special issue.

Final considerations

The special issues – with practically all in multimedia narrative format, except for O Estado de S. Paulo – acknowledge the ‘coup’ and, consequently, the ‘military dictatorship’ as something negative and harmful to the country’s history, in the titles and in the first lines, presenting these expressions that carry a conception and an interpretation of these events. They show a period of exception in which rights have been curtailed with discretion and the crimes committed with the support and collusion of the state through its armed agents, such as murders, cassations, disappearances, arrests, kidnappings and torture.

O Último Segundo does not present any positive aspect or even justification that fits with the coup’s perspective for the illegal ouster of President João Goulart; on the contrary, as the days go by, the positioning becomes more evident and straightforward, with the word ‘coup’ being the gateway to its production. Folha de S. Paulo also follows this explicit view, presenting very few parts condescending to the military’s perspective. They were mainly restricted to the last two sections of opinionated texts (‘What if. . .’ and ‘Articles’) and the testimonials of the interviewed military. Even so, memories of the coup supporters appear on a smaller scale compared to the memories of those who opposed Jango’s deposition; however, those testimonials do not seem to conform to the newspaper’s discourse, as if they were merely intended to show that there are different thoughts/positions, but the reader should learn the history they tell from that perspective.

Even though O Estado de S. Paulo and G1 have made similar criticisms of those of the other two special issues, one cannot fail to point out some complacency with the military and their supporters. On some occasions, the São Paulo newspaper speaks of Jango and Brizola as ‘dangerous’ because they could implement a communist dictatorship, a perspective close to that of the coup supporters at the time, including that of Estado Group itself. This compromise with the coup can be explained because the productions usually prized for the strict presentation of the interviewees’ or the authors’ views of the texts, which resembled opinion articles; all of them, however, without a direct confrontation of such views – whether they were for or against the deposition. G1 was indulgent on several occasions with the military, as when both vehicles accuse João Goulart of being leftist and communist to justify the rupture on March 31, 1964, mainly through interviewees.

Standard journalistic text has a hierarchy of structure at some pyramidal level, whether inverted, lying down or in streams. Of the special issues analysed, only O Estado de S. Paulo did not work with a multimedia narrative, thus having a hierarchy along the lines of this traditional journalism – with reports and opinion articles – except for its first production, practically without quotes and written in a historical and didactic way, as if it were the truth to be learned. The other three vehicles, however, valued the chronological order of events, following overriding dates. Folha de S. Paulo did not escape the chronology, even though it expanded the productions beyond the coup, talking about the dictatorship and even the remnants after its end to the present day. The citations in the three newspapers that produced multimedia narratives are practically null, except for the video testimonials in this São Paulo vehicle – closer to citation – even though they did not influence the narrative of the special issue, appearing in a more peripheral and illustrative way.

The historical and didactic tone dominates the multimedia narratives, with the sources and references observed only in the final part of the special issue, not in the body of the text, as it is common in journalistic productions. The newspapers made a compendium of the readings and presented their perspective of the facts, the way they interpreted the event in 1964, however, without many direct and indirect citations. Collective memories in books and classic works about the coup and dictatorship prevail, with individual memories becoming more relegated to what was not central to the vehicle’s narrative and discourse, appearing to bring the vision of an individual, except for Estadão. Folha de S. Paulo, G1 portal and Último Segundo clearly marked their positioning, with these personal memories appearing peripherally, even if they fit the vehicle’s perspective.

The message of the vehicles is clear: what is important is the vehicle’s central narrative, not the individual memories. Even though the emphasis of the special issue is on the characters involved in the coup and the dictatorship, the memories are collective, not individual. The information comes from historical documents and books. On the other hand, O Estado de S. Paulo is the only one to follow a standard journalistic structure, citing its sources several times as a basis for the construction of the journalistic narrative, from researchers, scholars and opposition politicians to former military men. Individual memory appears stronger as legitimating aspect than collective memory.

Último Segundo was the only one that did not use old newspapers from the coup period as sources for its special issue. Being the only one which is not from a historical media group would not prevent this type of use, since the G1, for example, used more newspapers outside its group, with newspapers appearing as historical sources throughout the multimedia narrative, with the section ‘In the newsstands’. Folha de S. Paulo cited its previous productions only in two opinion articles, but had virtually no digitized content, except for a video report by TV Cultura. O Estado de S. Paulo produced a completely self-referential infographic, based only on the articles published in its printed newspaper, in order to reconstruct the coup and the military dictatorship from 1960 to 1990. It is a kind of an endogenous (self) legitimation.

The battles of memories provide an opportunity for the field of memory studies not only as a concept of memory conflicts, but when understanding these processes as a specific situation in which silences, erasures and forgetfulness are provided by some groups. The concept allows, in this way, a broader and transmedia investigation, not focused only on some journalistic and media products. The 50th anniversary of the coup itself could be approached in several ways, especially by making use of independent memories or media spaces beyond large companies. The alternative media, proliferating with digital technologies and suitable for mediatized societies, allow investigations with new actors and agents of memories, opening up even more perspectives for new studies.