Why ESPN’s story on Rio is unfair

Last week, ESPN published a story named Deadly Games on its website. Written by Wright Thompson, it focuses on the recent history of a favela called Macacos, which is close to Maracanã Stadium – the most important stadium of Brazil. His thesis seems to be that Rio de Janeiro is not as adequate for Olympic Games and a World Cup as the shiny brochure “full of color photographs and grand statements” that outlines our bid to the 2016 Olympics portrays. Brazilian newspapers and TV shows reached out for authorities to comment on it, but only specialists from universities spoke.


Wright Thompson fires against Rio

  

The story clearly plays down the role of the public policies implemented in Rio envisioning the sports events to come, but also the well being of its population. Macacos was indeed a violent slum, but on the 30th of November 2010 it received a peacemaking police unit, known as UPP, which took over the favela without firing one single shot. This is only mentioned by Wright in the end of the story, after describing in details violent times that are over in that community. It is good writing - I can’t deny it – but it tries to undermine all the efforts to make the World Cup and the Olympics happen based on a problem that is undeniably on its way to a solution.

Macacos’ UPP was the 13th installed in Rio. Currently, there are 16. This policy is a breakthrough and in ESPN’s biased story it was discredited for the past experience of one specific favela. All the favelas served by the UPP have a terribly violent past. Shouldn’t the government be praised for its initiative? Wright says “Rio has less than three years to fix a crisis a century in the making.” He doesn’t say much about how we are advancing on that, though. Probably, it seemed better journalism to swim against the current and portray Rio as a hopeless war zone, like the old times.



Peacemaking Police Unit in Macacos: an ongoing solution


He also says that “nearby neighborhoods have become war zones”. I used to teach some English and I always explained my students that Present Perfect, as on “have become”, means an action that happened in the past but is somehow strongly related to the present. When you say “nearby neighborhoods have become war zones” it means these neighborhoods are still war zones and THEY ARE NOT, as the one who writes the story explains afterwards.

It would have been much more accurate if the journalist had described the dangerous life in Macacos as if it were memories of other times (even though these times are recent), rather than “Rio’s reality”, as he keeps repeating. This has got a name: utter unfairness.