A regrettable scene unfolded earlier this month during a debate for mayor of São Paulo: candidate José Luiz Datena, a TV presenter, exploded when opponent Pablo Marçal, a far-right influencer, brought up a sexual harassment complaint against Datena and said Datena was not man enough to hit him.
Datena grabbed a chair and slammed it against Marçal’s right shoulder, resulting in an uncomplicated rib trauma and a cut to Marçal’s right hand. It was the most outlandish moment in an election marked by mudslinging. The campaign for the largest city in the Southern Hemisphere has been rife with insults, accusations, and crude nicknames.
This Sunday, Marçal was expelled from another debate after disobeying the moderator’s instructions to stop saying that if he were elected, he would have mayoral incumbent Ricardo Nunes arrested. Afterward, one of his staff members punched Nunes' campaign manager in the face.
Marçal’s verbal assaults on his rivals have included slurs like “jack” (a prison term for rapists), “cokehead,” “bum,” and “little banana.” Verbal attacks have also come from other candidates: Guilherme Boulos called Marçal a “scoundrel or psychopath,” while Nunes also insinuated Boulos uses cocaine.
The widespread acrimony has sparked discussions on the role journalism should play in improving the civility and substance of televised debates.
Experts told LatAm Journalism Review (LJR) that moderators and organizers can elevate debates by establishing stricter penalties for candidates who avoid answering questions, reducing direct interactions between candidates or even calling for the intervention of the Superior Electoral Court, the country’s highest electoral body.
Physical violence was rare in Brazilian political debates until this August, when a candidate head butted another in a debate in the capital of the northern state of Piauí. But verbal attacks and the lack of discussion on issues have been hallmarks since the first Brazilian presidential debate in 1989, following the country’s democratization, according to Oto Montagner, a professor at Fundação Getúlio Vargas.
“The profile of the politicians varies, but the lack of proposals is a constant,” Montagner said. “The level of aggressiveness fluctuates from one election to another, and now we’ve reached an extreme, with physical violence.”
In his doctoral thesis, Montagner analyzed debates through game theory, a branch of mathematics used to understand how rational individuals make decisions in competitive situations.
Montagner compares political debates to the classic “prisoner’s dilemma,” where mutual cooperation would benefit both parties, but a lack of trust leads to a suboptimal outcome.
“This leads to a balance of mutual attacks, even if detrimental to both,” Montagner said. “If they could agree to a more constructive debate, it would be better for both, but since each fears being vulnerable, they end up attacking.”
Experts say social media platforms prioritize aggressive and sensationalist posts, incentivizing candidates to radicalize. This is evident in the case of “outsider” candidates, like Marçal, an influencer running for the tiny Brazilian Labor Renewal Party. He frequently uses short videos to highlight his most favorable moments.
“In the digital environment, to stand out, a candidate has to be more exotic, more radical,” said political scientist and UERJ communication professor Fábio Vasconcellos to LJR. “These candidates are rewarded with likes, engagement, and more media coverage.
Some experts propose one solution: increasing the costs for candidates who prefer chaos over debate.
Fábio Vasconcellos suggests a model where candidates are expelled if they persist in inappropriate behavior, such as using profanity or making offensive remarks. A committee could determine which cases are unacceptable. He proposes a low tolerance threshold.
“A first warning results in a yellow card, and a second, a red card, leading to the candidate’s elimination from the debate,” he said. “For this to work, the rules need to be clear. An external commission, like [the Brazilian Bar Association], could even be created to judge infractions in real time.”
Vasconcellos also advocates for more active and firm moderators, intervening directly when false information or baseless accusations are made.
“The moderator can’t allow false information to spread uncontested. They need to intervene whenever a lie is told or when the debate begins to spiral out of control,” he said.
Similar rules were applied in the Flow News YouTube debate on September 23. The candidates signed a commitment before the debate, agreeing that after three warnings, the candidate would be expelled, their microphone turned off, their chair removed, and security might intervene.
In his closing remarks, Marçal received a warning from host Carlos Tramontina after saying that, if elected, Nunes would go to jail. After repeating the insult, Tramontina expelled him.
Vasconcellos also suggests that TV networks use fact-checking tools—already employed by several outlets, like TV Cultura—to correct false information in real-time.
Carolina Almeida de Paula, a scholar at IESP-UERJ, proposes greater involvement from the Superior Electoral Court, or TSE for its initials in Portuguese, during debates. Campaigns in Brazil are heavily regulated, with numerous restrictions on what can and cannot be done. But debates remain largely unregulated.
“We need to legislate this as well,” Almeida de Paula told LJR. “Some might say, ‘It’s bad that the TSE is involved in everything.’ On one hand, it is, but if campaigns in Brazil are controlled by the court, debates need to be as well.”
Motagner’s proposals include thematic blocks led by moderators – instead of direct interactions between candidates – and more opportunities for a candidate to respond when an opponent has gone off-topic. Another idea: warning lights and cutting the time from candidates who fail to present a proposal or avoid answering a question.
“Reducing the available time could force politicians to get straight to the point and prevent the proliferation of attacks,” he said.
Vasconcellos also recommends reducing the number of debates. This year, São Paulo’s campaign includes 10 debates in the first round of voting and six in the second.
“Reducing the number of debates and increasing the quality of those that are held, focusing on relevant topics, would help improve the quality of the discussion,” said Vasconcellos.
Since the chair-throwing incident between Datena and Marçal, two more debates have taken place, aside the one at Flow News. The first, on Rede TV!, was marked by shouting and further exchanges of insults. Datena said he would not “hit a coward two times”, while Marçal compared the opponent to “an orangotangos.” Before the event, the network bolted the chairs to the floor. Several times, the host raised her voice to control the candidates, and the overall impression was one of chaos.
The following debate, on SBT, was less aggressive, with fewer attacks and more proposals. Polls show that since the assault, Marçal’s disapproval ratings have risen, and he promised to behave better during that debate, even asking for voters' forgiveness. “People want to see both your worst and best version. I’ve shown my worst in the debates, but from now on, you’ll see someone with a governor’s demeanor,” he said.
The rise in Marçal’s disapproval suggests another factor, said Carolina de Paula: voters don’t like the circus. While they may find it entertaining—the chair incident spawned a flood of memes—they realize the tone is too low, the researcher said.
“People generally don’t like it. Polls show that people find it funny, entertaining, like a reality show,” said Almeida de Paula. “But while they find it amusing, it doesn’t translate into votes. For most voters, it’s not well-received. It’s a bad strategy.”
Almeida de Paula points out another factor in this narrative: the complicity of the broadcasters. According to Brazilian law, Marçal didn't even need to be present at the debates because the electoral court establishes that radio and television broadcasters are only required to invite candidates affiliated with parties that have a minimum representation of five members in Congress. Marçal's party does not meet this quota.
The researcher’s hypothesis, in this case, is that the broadcasters' decision not to cut him suggests they see advantages in his presence and the circus.
"Theoretically, the broadcasters wouldn't even need to invite Marçal," said Almeida de Paula. "But for them, these [chaotic] scenes are often welcome. It's what draws an audience; it's what generates buzz," Almeida de Paula said.
