PREFACE

By Emile G. McAnany

This monograph by Sérgio Mattos serves as a model for communication research in the future. That future is increasingly international. At first glance, one might think the conclusions of the work Show just the opposite, that Brazil is a case of a country that was both economically and culturally dependent before the military coup of 1964 and that by 1980 it had become independent in both its economy and its mass media content. At one level this is evident from both strong economic growth, industrialization and the increase of Brazilian made television programming by 1980. On the other hand, by this latter year Brazil was also more closely inserted into the world economic system of trade, both economically and culturally. Transnational corporations and especially transnational finance capital were still vital to continued economic growth, whatever the mix of state enterprise and private sector institutions within Brazil. The country continues (and must continue by the nature of the logic of the international economy into which it has become integrated) to push exports, whether industrial products, consumer goods or cultural items. By any of these standards, Brazil has followed a curious double path that Mr. Mattos describes so clearly, of both nationalism and dependency.

Mr. Mattos has performed an important service to communication scholarship by carefully documenting the growth of Brazilian television and the influence of. the military regime on it during the important years since 1964. He shows that the military were clear from early on about what to do with this important mass medium. Their goals for television, the author points out, "were geared to accelerating order, progress, security and modernization, including strong state participation in the economy, friendliness to multinational investment, and development of basic conditions for national integration through the telecommunication system"(P.93). He shows that the basic goals of security and order were overriding so that at various times the military president of the country did not hesitate to use direct methods of censorship when it was deemed necessary. But the author also describes the technical and efficiency goals that the military regime promoted as well. These were manifested in an increasingly sophisticated and centralized (in the Ministry of Communications) apparatus that not only promoted a phenomenal growth of television stations but also a reinforcing social infrastructure of laws, regulations and institutions.

The author argues convincingly that the period 1964-1980 was a time of significant change and growth for television and the social infrastructure to make it technically efficient, economically successful and increasingly self-sufficient in production. The conclusion that some might make, though the author is careful not to make it himself, is that the military government of Brazil was a nationalist, capitalist movement which has succeeded in showing how self-reliance can overcome the threats of what some have called the chronic dependency state of Latin America, both economically and culturally.

The economic health of television in Brazil has a great deal to do with the policies of the military, which promoted the "miracle" of 1969-1974. With increased consumer goods' production by both transnational and national enterprises, there was increased revenue for advertising and much of this flowed into television. But as the author indicates at the close of his study, much of this revenue comes through transnational firms and transnational advertising. This does not mean that Brazil has an economically independent (as an opposed to a dependent) television system. Nor does increasing exports to other countries (it now exports its programs to some 50 countries worldwide) mean greater independence from forces that influence content.

Culturally the analysis the author provides is one of intriguing glimpses, but it has not been his purpose to analyze all of the factors that have created the cultural phenomenon that Brazilian television is today. He does point out that Brazilian television went through three distinct phases of content evolution: very early in its history when television was by the necessity of the technology a "live" medium, programs obviously were local; then during the 1960s and early 1970s it became a haven for US and other foreign series and films; finally, beginning in the early to mid-1970s, Brazil began to develop its own programs for prime time and to export them widely. The author points out that "as a result to recommendations, admonitions, criticism and suggestions from the government, television nationalized its programs, which today are typically Brazilian in treatment, theme and style"(p.96). I would suggest, however, that another equally important factor was that by the mid-1970s Brazilian television enterprises (especially the transnational financed Globo group) found it economically attractive to make their own programs for the growing internal market as well as looking for international markets.

It is true that Brazil's military promoted national cultural values, but always within their own vision of the good society, a society that was to be secure (militarily), prosperous (economically, within a capitalist framework) and moral (no violence or sex on the TV screens). What remains to be seen is whether this vision continues to promote a spontaneous participation of the Brazilian people as the regime planned. (Elections in the very near future are somewhat clouded by the seeming hesitation of the "abertura" to provide open elections by all parties.) The other aspect that is a task for communication scholars to pursue is whether the values of nationally made programs reflect more the culture of the Brazilian people at large or the demands of a television system heavily dependent on advertising and perhaps increasingly dependent on the export income of their programs to other peoples or cultures. Brazil is a fascinating case and one that deserves close attention in the future. This work by Sérgio Mattos has marked the opening of this case but not the final word. We look forward to further work in this field by the author.

PREFACE / INTRODUCTION / 1. A BRIEF HISTORY OF BRAZILIAN TELEVISION / 2. THE IMPACT OF THE MILITARY REGIME ON TELEVISION / 3. THE INFLUENCE OF COMMUNICATION LAWS AND REGULATORY AGENCIES ON THE GROWTH OF TELEVISION / 4. POLITICAL INFLUENCES ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF TELEVISION / 5. SOCIOECONOMIC INFLUENCES ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF TELEVISION / 6.SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS / 7. NOTES / 8. BIBLIOGRAPHY / 9. ABOUT THE AUTHOR