Journalist freedom in Brazil, according the Brazilian journalists

This report summarizes the clustered results of the research on “Freedom of Journalism” (MESSAGI; CARVALHO; BOZZA, 2017), carried out by the Communication and Democracy research group at Universidade Federal do Paraná (UFPR). The survey, with a tool developed by UFPR, was online. This allows national research to be carried out at low cost. The collection of data for the survey about journalistic freedom was done through a link sent by email and publications on trade union websites, portals aimed at journalists and sending a message via email from undergraduate courses of journalism. The survey contains 42 questions and sought to map ways of restricting the right of publication and access to information, over the period of the last 5 years. Ten of the 42 questions were variable: status, gender, age, education, income, areas of activity, main activity of the company where you work, type of content produced, size of the team of journalists you work with and hierarchical relationship with colleagues. The second part dealt with restrictions on publication of information, with questions about censorship and self-censorship and carrying out recommended stories (when the owner of media outlets demands the newsroom to publish something for your own interests). Other forms of restriction, more explicit and direct, were also questioned, such as moral offences and physical violence, against themselves and against colleagues. Two questions were about whether the journalist feels protected from pressure and who would protect him. Who interferes most in journalistic freedom also composed the form. There were two questions that deal with the knowledge of the editorial line professional and the ideological point of view of the vehicle in which he works. Finally, this part of the form ended as a question that serves to test a hypothesis: that the controls often assume a more subtle, organizational feature, exercised by the professional rise in the company. Would the professionals be restrained by the sanctions identified by the Organizational Theory? (BREED, 1955). Is it possible to say that the institutional organization overrides the rules of the profession? The third part of the questionnaire concerned access to information, in a broad way. The research asked how the journalist perceives access to information in all areas: public authorities (Legislative, Executive and Judiciary), at all levels (Federal, Provinces and Towns) and in all sectors (private, third sector, social movements and union). The fourth part measured the perception of journalists on macro-social issues that affect journalistic freedom and that concern the regulation of the area of communication, such as media concentration, radio and TV regulation, presence of politicians as concessionaires of broadcast licenses, participation of churches in the media in Brazil, degree in journalism as a condition to practice the profession and creation of a Federal Council of Journalism.本报告总结了由巴拉那联邦大学（Universidade Federal do Paraná, UFPR）传播与民主研究小组开展的"新闻自由"研究（MESSAGI、CARVALHO、BOZZA，2017）的聚类分析结果。本次调研采用该校自主研发的线上调研工具，可低成本开展全国范围的研究工作。调研数据通过电子邮件发送链接、在工会网站及面向记者的门户网站发布信息、向新闻专业本科课程群组发送邮件等方式收集。问卷共包含42道题目，旨在梳理过去五年间出版物出版权与信息获取权受到限制的各类情形。其中10道为背景变量题，涵盖个人身份、性别、年龄、受教育程度、收入水平、从业领域、就职企业的核心业务、所产出内容的类型、所属记者团队规模以及与同事的层级关系等维度。 问卷第二部分聚焦信息出版限制相关内容，涉及审查与自我审查，以及媒体所有者为自身利益要求编辑部刊发指定稿件等场景的相关问题。调研还针对更为直白直接的其他限制形式展开问询，包括针对记者本人及同事的道德攻击与肢体暴力。另有两道题目围绕记者是否感受到压力防护、以及会由谁为其提供保护展开。问卷还设置了关于哪些主体对新闻自由干预程度最高的题目。另有两道题目用于了解从业者对所在媒体的编辑方针与意识形态立场的认知情况。最后，本部分以一道用于验证假设的题目收尾：行业管控往往呈现出更为隐蔽的组织化特征，由企业内部的资深从业者施加。那么，从业者是否会受到组织理论（Organizational Theory）所界定的惩戒约束？（BREED，1955）我们能否认为，制度性组织架构凌驾于行业职业准则之上？ 问卷第三部分围绕广义层面的信息获取展开。调研询问了记者对各领域信息获取情况的感知：包括各级（联邦、州、市镇）立法、行政、司法等公共权力部门，以及私营部门、第三部门、社会运动与工会等各类领域。 问卷第四部分旨在评估记者对影响新闻自由且关乎传媒行业监管的宏观社会议题的认知，具体包括媒体集中化、广播电视监管、政客作为广播牌照特许经营者的存在情况、巴西教会对媒体的参与度、从业需具备新闻学学位的要求，以及巴西联邦新闻工作者委员会（Federal Council of Journalism）的设立等议题。