Direitos humanos e suas justificativas na mídia: a controvérsia envolvendo o caso do PNDH-3

Abstract

This work aims to reflect on the question of justification and the decision-making from a deliberative process involving human rights policies in Brazil. The theory of deliberative democracy affirms that preference changes are expected as a result of a process of debate,which should be based in a public discussion, in an inclusiveness of participants and in the use of reason. Through the controversial case of the Third National Program for Human Rights (PNDH-3), we aim to discuss the issue of decision's change and the mutual justification which is required for legitimize this change. We will use as empirical case thediscussion about PNDH-3 in the media. From the utterances about the program we will apply methodologies for qualitative and quantitative analysis. Content analysis is used to show how the utterances are used as justification for changing the PNDH-3. Also resort to the methodDQI (Discourse Quality Index) developed by Steiner et al (2004) to assess the rationality and justification of speeches, a method that is configured as a way to quantitatively measure the deliberativeness. Our purpose is to investigate the justifications given for the redesign PNDH- 3, comparing the trajectory of the questions raised in the arguments selected in three weeks of coverage of the case in the media. These weeks refer to: (1) the time when the program was created as part of the 11th National Conference on Human Rights; (2) the time when there isan intensification of the debate in the media; and (3) the period after the publication of the new version the decree containing the proposed changes. The utterances are taken from printed materials (Estado de Minas, Folha de São Paulo and O Globo) and television news(Jornal Nacional, Jornal da Band, Jornal da Record)