Cecília Flesch, 39, made a live appearance on Instagram to comment behind the scenes on her departure from GloboNews.
The journalist said she was told her dismissal was due to a “rewording by the channel” and not because of her lines on the podcast “É Noia Minha?”. “I heard I got shut down for a channel restatement, but the day I did a pilot, I was part of the restatement.”
Related
The day before I was talking to the editorinchief about the news of the newspaper and the new plans, I was doing a pilot and I didn’t understand how a newspaper that has been attracting audiences for a month can get through this. Cecilia Flesch
syringes contacted GloboNews looking for a position on everything she has said and what she is waiting for. The text will be updated as soon as there is feedback.
Flesch reported what he called a “sequence of strange events”:
Leaked Message. “At the very end of February, an editor who I considered a very close friend printed a personal message from one of the top editors at Em Ponto. She printed out this message, folks, and mailed it to the editorial office in Rio de Janeiro. [Na mensagem] A personal friend sent a friend a comment about a publisher. He called the other editor stupid because she couldn’t understand a very basic connection with news. He took care of the newspaper, he wanted to solve this problem and said: “Wow, stupid girl, can’t she understand what I’m talking about?”
This message has been printed and sent to the editorial office in Rio de Janeiro. We will never understand why this girl who is considered a friend did this. She never explained it. Cecilia Flesch
Ban on praising the team. “The leadership change was confirmed in April. In a meeting with my then editorinchief, she forbade me to praise the team for running the station. She said if I praised the team we would lose that. The best people we had. She even interrupted one of my speeches, very abruptly. Four days later we learn, unwittingly, that an attempt has been made to remove this great editor from us, whom I praised. […] I managed to turn the situation around and we managed to keep him with us.”
The editor who had the message printed would have been called in to clarify. “[Ele] I found out that there were absurd allegations against him, allegations of fat phobia, religious intolerance, racism. absurd things. That made us very angry. We thought he was raising awareness for calling a girl stupid. NO. They had greatly expanded the story. I say this because of my character. I have a lot of trust in that person and I know I’ve seen him and lived with him and I know he hasn’t done any of that.”
New editorinchief suffered “boycotts”. According to Flesch, the commissioned editor suffered from a loss of audience monitoring, saw her editors derided for the new working method she had introduced (decoupage of large interviews sent to the afternoon papers), and boycotted interviews — which became proposed names rejected.
It was really horrible. It took a month to watch the audience go upstairs and just get pounded. Cecilia Flesch
Publisher who leaked the news that it was “gossip”: “She continued to poison people on the team, gossip, gossip, not addressing me. She did it because we were all friends, and when I found out about her lack of loyalty, which is a very serious matter for me, I…” She broke off relations with her, not bothering to explain herself. She herself confirmed to others that she printed the message.
The “betrayed” editor was fired: “My political editor, who had been betrayed, was on holiday and only saw the revival of the newspaper when he returned. When he returned seven days later, he was released on the grounds that he had done many bad things. That was the explanation given. And we never got the definitive account of it.”
I was outraged, very sad, very upset. I didn’t accept it, I said something had to be done […] I didn’t do anything and wasn’t I right? I was encouraged to stay alone, I stayed alone, and an injustice happened to me a few days later.
Warning. “On May 29, I received an email alert with a printout of an April 12 story. The story will be deleted in 24 hours […] In the pamphlet, I allegedly advertised a clothing brand. […] I explained that this was not the case, but that I was replying to subscribers to an outfit I wore while working at the newspaper. It was a garment on loan from our fashion department, so someone who worked with the company. I said, “Anyone who asks, the overalls are from one store or another.”
Print “didn’t seem” institutional: “This screenshot of my story, taken 40 days before the date I received the email, showed an iPhone at 9:45 p.m. with 11% battery. There didn’t seem to be anything institutional, like there was a department watching.” This. Someone relayed a mean pressure to signal direction.