In the Face of Disinformation: To Publish or Not to Publish in the Vaza Jato Case

Abstract

This article analyses journalistic decisions in the face of disinformation, focusing on the case of Vaza Jato in Brazil. Drawing on a mixed-methods approach—combining critical discourse analysis of online articles with semi-structured interviews with two editors—the study explores how two ideologically contrasting newspapers (Folha de S.Paulo and Gazeta do Povo) framed and justified their editorial positions regarding the publication of hacked content. The findings reveal distinct narrative strategies, degrees of epistemological openness, and levels of institutional trust in the judiciary and political actors. The results also show how editorial decisions are shaped by broader concerns about professional legitimacy, audience trust, and the ambiguous boundary between journalism and disinformation. This article contributes to research on disinformation, editorial ethics, and media trust, proposing an analytical framework applicable to other high-risk communication contexts.