FERNANDA CÂNCIO

.

A santa casa do jornalismo

Não há forma de salvar o jornalismo se quem o consome não só crê ter direito a ele de graça como não o distingue do seu contrário. E não ajuda que o investimento público de emergência não possa distinguir entre projetos sérios e campeões da desinformação e da propaganda porque a regulação simplesmente não funciona.

𝖤 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝗇𝖺𝗌 𝗋𝖾𝖽𝖾𝗌 𝗌𝗈𝖼𝗂𝖺𝗂𝗌: 𝖽𝖾 𝖼𝖺𝖽𝖺 𝗏𝖾𝗓 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗌𝖾 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗂𝗅𝗁𝖺 𝗎𝗆 𝗍𝖾𝗑𝗍𝗈 "𝖿𝖾𝖼𝗁𝖺𝖽𝗈" (𝖽𝖾 𝖺𝖼𝖾𝗌𝗌𝗈 𝗉𝖺𝗀𝗈), 𝗌𝖾𝗃𝖺 𝖾𝗅𝖾 𝗇𝗈𝗍𝗂𝖼𝗂𝗈𝗌𝗈 𝗈𝗎 𝖽𝖾 𝗈𝗉𝗂𝗇𝗂𝖺̃𝗈, 𝗁𝖺́ 𝗀𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝖺 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝗍𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗋: "𝖰𝗎𝖾𝗋𝗂𝖺 𝗅𝖾𝗋 𝗆𝖺𝗌 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺́ 𝖿𝖾𝖼𝗁𝖺𝖽𝗈, 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗉𝖾𝗇𝖺." 𝖧𝖺́ 𝖺𝗍𝖾́ 𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗆 𝖺𝖿𝗂𝗋𝗆𝖾 𝗍𝖾𝗋 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗈 𝗉𝗋𝗂𝗇𝖼𝗂́𝗉𝗂𝗈 "𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝗉𝖺𝗀𝖺𝗋 𝗉𝗈𝗋 𝗂𝗇𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗆𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈". 𝖭𝖺 𝗏𝖾𝗋𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾, 𝗉𝗈𝗋 𝗉𝗋𝗂𝗇𝖼𝗂́𝗉𝗂𝗈 𝖽𝖾𝖼𝗅𝖺𝗋𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝗈𝗎 𝗉𝗈𝗋 𝗈𝗎𝗍𝗋𝗈 𝗆𝗈𝗍𝗂𝗏𝗈, 𝖺 𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗈𝗋𝗂𝖺 𝖽𝖺𝗌 𝗉𝖾𝗌𝗌𝗈𝖺𝗌 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝗉𝖺𝗀𝖺: 𝖺𝗈 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖺́𝗋𝗂𝗈 𝖽𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗌𝖾 𝗉𝖺𝗌𝗌𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗆 𝖺 𝗀𝖾𝗇𝖾𝗋𝖺𝗅𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝗈𝗎𝗍𝗋𝗈𝗌 𝖻𝖾𝗇𝗌, 𝗂𝗇𝖼𝗅𝗎𝗂𝗇𝖽𝗈 𝖺𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗅𝖾𝗌 𝗍𝖺̃𝗈 𝗏𝗂𝗍𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗈 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗂𝖽𝖺, 𝖺́𝗀𝗎𝖺 𝗈𝗎 𝖾𝗅𝖾𝗍𝗋𝗂𝖼𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾, 𝗈 𝗃𝗈𝗋𝗇𝖺𝗅𝗂𝗌𝗆𝗈 𝗉𝖺𝗌𝗌𝗈𝗎 𝖺 𝗌𝖾𝗋 𝗏𝗂𝗌𝗍𝗈 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗈 𝖺𝗅𝗀𝗈 𝖺 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗌𝖾 𝗍𝖾𝗆 𝖽𝗂𝗋𝖾𝗂𝗍𝗈 𝗉𝗈𝗋 𝗂𝗇𝖾𝗋𝖾̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺, 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝖾𝗌𝗉𝖾́𝖼𝗂𝖾 𝖽𝖾 𝖻𝖾𝗆 𝗉𝗎́𝖻𝗅𝗂𝖼𝗈 𝖺 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗌𝖾 𝖾𝗑𝗂𝗀𝖾 𝖺𝖼𝖾𝗌𝗌𝗈 𝗀𝗋𝖺́𝗍𝗂𝗌.

𝖰𝗎𝖺𝗅𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗋 𝗃𝗈𝗋𝗇𝖺𝗅𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖺 𝗌𝖺𝖻𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝖺𝗇𝖽𝗈 𝗈𝗌 𝗌𝖾𝗎𝗌 𝗍𝖾𝗑𝗍𝗈𝗌 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺̃𝗈 𝖿𝖾𝖼𝗁𝖺𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝖺 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝖻𝖺𝖻𝗂𝗅𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝖽𝖾 𝗌𝖾𝗋𝖾𝗆 𝗅𝗂𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝖾 𝖽𝖾 𝗍𝖾𝗋𝖾𝗆 𝖺𝗅𝗀𝗎𝗆 𝗂𝗆𝗉𝖺𝖼𝗍𝗈 𝖾́ 𝗆𝗎𝗂𝗍𝗈 𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗈𝗋 - 𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖿𝖺𝗓 𝖼𝗈𝗆 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗈𝗌 𝗉𝗋𝗈́𝗉𝗋𝗂𝗈𝗌 𝗃𝗈𝗋𝗇𝖺𝗅𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗌, 𝗉𝗈𝗋𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗇𝖽𝖾𝗆 𝗈 𝗌𝖾𝗎 𝗍𝗋𝖺𝖻𝖺𝗅𝗁𝗈 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗈 𝗆𝗂𝗌𝗌𝖺̃𝗈 𝖾 𝗌𝖾𝗋𝗏𝗂𝖼̧𝗈 𝗉𝗎́𝖻𝗅𝗂𝖼𝗈, 𝗉𝗋𝖾𝖿𝗂𝗋𝖺𝗆 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖾𝗃𝖺𝗆 "𝖺𝖻𝖾𝗋𝗍𝗈𝗌". 𝖤́ 𝗎𝗆 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺𝖽𝗈𝗑𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺́ 𝗇𝗈 𝖼𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗋𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝖽𝖾𝖼𝖺𝖽𝖾̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺 𝖽𝗈 𝗌𝖾𝗍𝗈𝗋: 𝗌𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝗂𝗌𝖾𝗋𝗆𝗈𝗌 𝗌𝖾𝗋 𝗋𝖾𝗅𝖾𝗏𝖺𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗌 𝗍𝖾𝗆𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝗌𝖾𝗋 𝗅𝗂𝖽𝗈𝗌, 𝗆𝖺𝗌 𝗌𝖾 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝗌𝖾𝗋𝗆𝗈𝗌 𝗅𝗂𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝗍𝖾𝗆𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝗌𝖾𝗋 𝗀𝗋𝖺𝗍𝗎𝗂𝗍𝗈𝗌 𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝗍𝖺𝗋𝖽𝖾 𝗈𝗎 𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝖼𝖾𝖽𝗈 𝖽𝖾𝗂𝗑𝖺𝗋𝖾𝗆𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝗉𝗎𝖻𝗅𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗋, 𝗉𝗈𝗋𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖿𝖺𝗓𝖾𝗆𝗈𝗌 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝖺𝖼𝗋𝖾𝗌𝖼𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺 𝗏𝖺𝗅𝗈𝗋 𝖺̀ 𝖾𝗆𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗌𝖺 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗇𝗈𝗌 𝗉𝖺𝗀𝖺, 𝗅𝗈𝗀𝗈, 𝖽𝖾𝗂𝗑𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝗉𝗈𝖽𝖾𝗋 𝗉𝖺𝗀𝖺𝗋-𝗇𝗈𝗌.

𝖠 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖾 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺𝖽𝗈𝗑𝗈 𝖺𝖼𝗋𝖾𝗌𝖼𝖾𝗆 𝗈𝗎𝗍𝗋𝗈𝗌. 𝖤𝗆 𝗉𝗋𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗂𝗋𝗈 𝗅𝗎𝗀𝖺𝗋, 𝗈 𝖿𝖺𝖼𝗍𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝗌𝖾𝗋𝖾𝗆 𝗈𝗌 𝗉𝗋𝗈́𝗉𝗋𝗂𝗈𝗌 𝗆𝖾𝗂𝗈𝗌 𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗋𝗂𝖻𝗎𝗂𝗋 𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗏𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝖺 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝗏𝖺𝗅𝗈𝗋𝗂𝗓𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝗈 𝗍𝗋𝖺𝖻𝖺𝗅𝗁𝗈 𝗃𝗈𝗋𝗇𝖺𝗅𝗂́𝗌𝗍𝗂𝖼𝗈. 𝖰𝗎𝖺𝗇𝖽𝗈 𝗎𝗆 𝗍𝖾𝗑𝗍𝗈 "𝖿𝖾𝖼𝗁𝖺𝖽𝗈" 𝗍𝖾𝗆 𝗂𝗇𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗆𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗌𝗂𝖽𝖾𝗋𝖺𝖽𝖺 𝗋𝖾𝗅𝖾𝗏𝖺𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝗉𝗈𝗋 𝗈𝗎𝗍𝗋𝗈𝗌 𝗆𝖾𝖽𝗂𝖺 𝖾́ "𝗉𝗂𝗋𝖺𝗍𝖾𝖺𝖽𝗈": 𝖾𝗌𝗌𝖾𝗌 𝗈𝗎𝗍𝗋𝗈𝗌 𝗆𝖾𝗂𝗈𝗌 𝗎𝗌𝖺́-𝗅𝗈-𝖺̃𝗈 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗈 𝖿𝗈𝗇𝗍𝖾, 𝗋𝖾𝖿𝖾𝗋𝗂𝖽𝖺 𝗈𝗎 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈, 𝖾 𝗉𝗎𝖻𝗅𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗋𝖺̃𝗈 𝗍𝖾𝗑𝗍𝗈𝗌 - 𝖺𝖻𝖾𝗋𝗍𝗈𝗌, 𝗉𝗈𝗋𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗌𝗂𝖽𝖾𝗋𝖺𝗆, 𝗇𝖺𝗍𝗎𝗋𝖺𝗅𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾, 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝗌𝖾𝗋𝖾𝗆 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗎́𝖽𝗈 𝖾𝗑𝖼𝗅𝗎𝗌𝗂𝗏𝗈 - 𝗇𝖾𝗅𝖾 𝖻𝖺𝗌𝖾𝖺𝖽𝗈𝗌, 𝖼𝖺𝗉𝗂𝗍𝖺𝗅𝗂𝗓𝖺𝗇𝖽𝗈 𝗈𝗌 𝖺𝖼𝖾𝗌𝗌𝗈𝗌 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗌𝖺̃𝗈 𝖺𝗌𝗌𝗂𝗆 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝗏𝗂𝖺𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝗈 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝖽𝗎𝗍𝗈𝗋 𝗈𝗋𝗂𝗀𝗂𝗇𝖺𝗅. 𝖱𝖾𝗌𝗎𝗆𝗂𝗇𝖽𝗈: 𝗎𝗆 𝗃𝗈𝗋𝗇𝖺𝗅𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖺 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖾𝗏𝖾 𝖺 𝗍𝗋𝖺𝖻𝖺𝗅𝗁𝖺𝗋 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝗌𝖾𝗋 𝗅𝗂𝖽𝗈 𝗇𝗈 𝗆𝖾𝗂𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗅𝗁𝖾 𝗉𝖺𝗀𝖺, 𝖾𝗇𝗊𝗎𝖺𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝗈𝗎𝗍𝗋𝗈𝗌 𝗆𝖾𝗂𝗈𝗌 𝗎𝗌𝖺𝗆 𝗈 𝗌𝖾𝗎 𝗍𝗋𝖺𝖻𝖺𝗅𝗁𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝗀𝗋𝖺𝖼̧𝖺 𝖺𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗂𝗇𝖽𝗈 𝗅𝖾𝗂𝗍𝗈𝗋𝖾𝗌 𝖾 𝗉𝗈𝗋𝗍𝖺𝗇𝗍𝗈 "𝖼𝗅𝗂𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗌", 𝗀𝖾𝗋𝖺𝗇𝖽𝗈 𝗈 "𝗍𝗋𝖺́𝖿𝖾𝗀𝗈" 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖿𝖺𝗓 𝗌𝗎𝖻𝗂𝗋 𝗈 𝗆𝖾𝗂𝗈 𝗇𝗈 𝗋𝖺𝗇𝗄𝗂𝗇𝗀 𝖽𝗈 𝖦𝗈𝗈𝗀𝗅𝖾 𝖾 𝖽𝗈 𝖥𝖺𝖼𝖾𝖻𝗈𝗈𝗄 𝖾 𝖺𝗌𝗌𝗂𝗆 𝖺𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗂𝗋 𝗉𝗎𝖻𝗅𝗂𝖼𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾. 𝖬𝗎𝗂𝗍𝖺𝗌 𝗏𝖾𝗓𝖾𝗌 𝗌𝗎𝖼𝖾𝖽𝖾 𝖺𝗍𝖾́ 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗈𝗌 𝗈𝗎𝗍𝗋𝗈𝗌 𝗆𝖾𝗂𝗈𝗌 𝗎𝗌𝖺𝗆 𝖺 𝗂𝗇𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗆𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖾 𝖺𝗌 𝖿𝗈𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗌 𝗋𝖾𝖿𝖾𝗋𝗂𝖽𝖺𝗌 𝗇𝗈 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗎́𝖽𝗈 𝗈𝗋𝗂𝗀𝗂𝗇𝖺𝗅 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝗉𝗎𝖻𝗅𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗋 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗎́𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗇𝖾𝗆 𝗈 𝗋𝖾𝖿𝖾𝗋𝖾𝗆 - 𝖾́ 𝖾𝗑𝗍𝗋𝖾𝗆𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗎𝗆 𝖺𝗌 𝖳𝖵 𝖼𝖺𝗇𝗂𝖻𝖺𝗅𝗂𝗓𝖺𝗋𝖾𝗆 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖾 𝗆𝗈𝖽𝗈 𝗈𝗌 𝗃𝗈𝗋𝗇𝖺𝗂𝗌.

𝖳𝗈𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝗈𝗌 𝗆𝖾𝗂𝗈𝗌 𝖿𝖺𝗓𝖾𝗆 𝗂𝗌𝗍𝗈, "𝗋𝗈𝗎𝖻𝖺𝗇𝖽𝗈" 𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗋 𝖺𝗈𝗌 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝖽𝗎𝗍𝗈𝗌 𝗃𝗈𝗋𝗇𝖺𝗅𝗂́𝗌𝗍𝗂𝖼𝗈𝗌 𝗇𝖺𝖼𝗂𝗈𝗇𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗋 𝖺𝗈𝗌 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗇𝗀𝖾𝗂𝗋𝗈𝗌, 𝗉𝗈𝗋𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗇𝗈 𝗇𝗈𝗏𝗈 "𝗆𝗈𝖽𝖾𝗅𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝗇𝖾𝗀𝗈́𝖼𝗂𝗈" 𝖽𝖺 𝗇𝖾𝗍 𝖾́ 𝗉𝗋𝖾𝖼𝗂𝗌𝗈 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗋 𝗌𝖾𝗆𝗉𝗋𝖾 𝖺 𝗉𝗎𝖻𝗅𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗋 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 "𝗀𝖾𝗋𝖺𝗋 𝗍𝗋𝖺́𝖿𝖾𝗀𝗈" 𝖾 𝗇𝖺𝗌 𝗋𝖾𝖽𝖺𝖼̧𝗈̃𝖾𝗌 𝖼𝖺𝖽𝖺 𝗏𝖾𝗓 𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝖽𝖾𝗉𝖺𝗎𝗉𝖾𝗋𝖺𝖽𝖺𝗌 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝗁𝖺́ 𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗆𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗋 𝗌𝖾𝗆𝗉𝗋𝖾 𝖺 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝖽𝗎𝗓𝗂𝗋 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗎́𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝗈𝗋𝗂𝗀𝗂𝗇𝖺𝗂𝗌. 𝖤 𝗂𝗌𝗍𝗈, 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖯𝖺𝗎𝗅𝗈 𝖯𝖾𝗇𝖺 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝖼𝗋𝖾𝗏𝖾𝗎 𝗃𝖺́ 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗈 𝗈 𝗃𝗈𝗋𝗇𝖺𝗅𝗂𝗌𝗆𝗈 𝗄𝖾𝖻𝖺𝖻("𝖼𝖺𝗋𝗇𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗋𝗍𝖺𝖽𝗂𝗇𝗁𝖺 𝖺𝗈𝗌 𝖻𝗈𝖼𝖺𝖽𝗂𝗇𝗁𝗈𝗌, 𝗃𝗎𝗇𝗍𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗆 𝖿𝖺𝗋𝗂𝗇𝗁𝖺 𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝖺𝗅𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗋 𝖼𝗈𝗂𝗌𝖺 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖿𝗂𝖼𝖺 𝖺 𝗋𝗈𝖽𝖺𝗋 𝗇𝗎𝗆 𝗋𝗈𝖽𝗂́𝗓𝗂𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝗀𝗋𝖾𝗅𝗁𝖺 𝖽𝗎𝗋𝖺𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝗈 𝖽𝗂𝖺 𝗂𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗂𝗋𝗈, 𝖼𝗈𝗋𝗍𝖺𝖽𝖺 𝖺̀𝗌 𝖿𝖺𝗍𝗂𝖺𝗓𝗂𝗇𝗁𝖺𝗌 𝗉𝖾𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗇𝗂𝗇𝖺𝗌, 𝗈𝖿𝖾𝗋𝖾𝖼𝗂𝖽𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗈 𝗋𝖾𝖿𝖾𝗂𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝖻𝖺𝗂𝗑𝗈 𝖼𝗎𝗌𝗍𝗈"), 𝖾́ 𝖿𝖾𝗂𝗍𝗈 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝖿𝗂𝖺𝗇𝖽𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖺𝗊𝗎𝗂𝗅𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗌𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗉𝗂𝖺 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺́ 𝖼𝗈𝗋𝗋𝖾𝗍𝗈 - 𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖾́ 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝖽𝖾 𝗅𝗈𝗀𝗈 𝗇𝖾𝗀𝖺𝗋 𝖺 𝖾𝗌𝗌𝖾̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺 𝖽𝗈 𝗃𝗈𝗋𝗇𝖺𝗅𝗂𝗌𝗆𝗈, 𝖺 𝗊𝗎𝖺𝗅 𝖾𝗑𝗂𝗀𝖾 𝗏𝖾𝗋𝗂𝖿𝗂𝖼𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖺𝗎𝗍𝗈́𝗇𝗈𝗆𝖺 𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝖿𝖺𝖼𝗍𝗈𝗌 𝖾 𝖺𝗎𝖽𝗂𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖺𝗌 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝗍𝖾𝗌 𝖺𝗍𝖾𝗇𝖽𝗂́𝗏𝖾𝗂𝗌 - 𝖾 𝗌𝖾𝗆 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗌𝖾𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗋 𝗌𝖾 𝗍𝖾𝗇𝗁𝖺 𝖺 𝖽𝖾𝖼𝖾̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝗉𝖺𝗀𝖺𝗋 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝖺𝗌𝗌𝗂𝗇𝖺𝗍𝗎𝗋𝖺 𝖺𝗈𝗌 𝗆𝖾𝗂𝗈𝗌 𝖺𝗌𝗌𝗂𝗆 𝖾𝗌𝗉𝗈𝗅𝗂𝖺𝖽𝗈𝗌. 𝖢𝖺𝖽𝖺 𝗆𝖾𝗂𝗈 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗋𝗂𝖻𝗎𝗂 𝖺𝗌𝗌𝗂𝗆, 𝖽𝗂𝖺́𝗋𝗂𝖺 𝖾 𝖺𝗅𝖾𝗀𝗋𝖾𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾, 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝖺 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝗍𝗋𝗎𝗂𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝗈 𝗏𝖺𝗅𝗈𝗋 𝖾 𝖽𝖺 𝗉𝗋𝖺́𝗍𝗂𝖼𝖺 𝖽𝗈 𝗃𝗈𝗋𝗇𝖺𝗅𝗂𝗌𝗆𝗈 𝖾 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝖺 𝗂𝖽𝖾𝗂𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝗌𝖾 𝖽𝖾𝗏𝖾 𝗉𝖺𝗀𝖺𝗋 𝗉𝗈𝗋 𝖾𝗅𝖾.

𝖲𝖾 𝖾𝗆 𝗍𝗈𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝗈𝗌 𝗆𝖾𝗂𝗈𝗌, 𝗉𝗈𝗋 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖾 𝗆𝗈𝗍𝗂𝗏𝗈, 𝖼𝖺𝖽𝖺 𝗏𝖾𝗓 𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝗌𝖾 𝗉𝗎𝖻𝗅𝗂𝖼𝖺 𝖺𝗅𝗀𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝖾́, 𝗉𝖾𝗅𝖺𝗌 𝗋𝖺𝗓𝗈̃𝖾𝗌 𝖾𝗑𝗉𝗈𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗌, 𝗃𝗈𝗋𝗇𝖺𝗅𝗂𝗌𝗆𝗈, 𝗁𝖺́ 𝖺𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗅𝖾𝗌 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗁𝖺́ 𝗆𝗎𝗂𝗍𝗈 𝗌𝖾 𝗇𝗈𝗍𝖺𝖻𝗂𝗅𝗂𝗓𝖺𝗋𝖺𝗆 𝗇𝖺 𝗌𝖾𝗇𝖽𝖺 𝖽𝖺 𝗌𝗎𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗋𝗋𝗎𝗉𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈. 𝖤 𝖼𝗈𝗆 𝗂𝗌𝗌𝗈, 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗇𝗁𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾, 𝖺𝗅𝖼𝖺𝗇𝖼̧𝖺𝗆 𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗈𝗋 𝗌𝗎𝖼𝖾𝗌𝗌𝗈 𝖽𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗈𝗌 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗍𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺𝗆 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗂𝗇𝗎𝖺𝗋 𝖺 𝗉𝗋𝖺𝗍𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗋 𝗃𝗈𝗋𝗇𝖺𝗅𝗂𝗌𝗆𝗈. 𝖯𝗈𝗋𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖾́ 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝖾́ 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗇𝗁𝗈? 𝖯𝗈𝗋𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗈 𝗃𝗈𝗋𝗇𝖺𝗅𝗂𝗌𝗆𝗈 𝖾́ 𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝗍𝗋𝖺𝖻𝖺𝗅𝗁𝗈𝗌𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝖿𝖺𝗓𝖾𝗋 𝖾 𝖽𝖾 𝖺𝗉𝗋𝖾𝖾𝗇𝖽𝖾𝗋: 𝗌𝖾 𝗍𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺𝗋𝗆𝗈𝗌 𝖺𝗉𝗋𝗈𝖿𝗎𝗇𝖽𝖺𝗋 𝗈𝗌 𝖺𝗌𝗌𝗎𝗇𝗍𝗈𝗌 𝖾 𝗈𝗎𝗏𝗂𝗋 𝗉𝖾𝗋𝗌𝗉𝖾𝗍𝗂𝗏𝖺𝗌 𝖽𝗂𝖿𝖾𝗋𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗌 𝗇𝖺𝖽𝖺 𝖿𝗂𝖼𝖺 𝗌𝗂𝗆𝗉𝗅𝖾𝗌 𝖾 𝗌𝗂𝗆𝗉𝗅𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖺, 𝗇𝖺𝖽𝖺 𝗌𝖾 𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺 𝗍𝖺𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝖺̀ 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗂𝗅𝗁𝖺 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝖼𝖾𝗋𝖾𝖻𝗋𝖺𝖽𝖺, 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝗉𝖺𝗀𝖺𝗇𝖽𝗂́𝗌𝗍𝗂𝖼𝖺 𝖾 𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗎𝗅𝗂𝗍𝖾𝗂𝗋𝖺 𝗇𝗈 𝖥𝖺𝖼𝖾𝖻𝗈𝗈𝗄, 𝖺𝗈 𝗏𝗈𝗒𝖾𝗎𝗋𝗂𝗌𝗆𝗈 𝖾 𝖺̀𝗌 𝗂𝗇𝖽𝗂𝗀𝗇𝖺𝖼̧𝗈̃𝖾𝗌 𝗋𝖺𝗂𝗏𝗈𝗌𝖺𝗌 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖿𝖺𝗓𝖾𝗆 𝗈 𝗌𝗎𝖼𝖾𝗌𝗌𝗈 𝗇𝖺𝗌 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗏𝖾𝗋𝗌𝖺𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝖼𝖺𝖿𝖾́ 𝖾 𝗇𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝗂𝗌𝖼𝗎𝗋𝗌𝗈𝗌 𝗉𝗈𝗉𝗎𝗅𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗌.

𝖴𝗆 𝖾𝗑𝖾𝗆𝗉𝗅𝗈: 𝗌𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝖺𝗇𝖽𝗈 𝗌𝖾 𝖿𝖺𝗅𝖺 𝖾𝗆 "𝗅𝗂𝖻𝖾𝗋𝗍𝖺𝗋 𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗈𝗌" 𝗈𝗎 𝖾𝗆 "𝗉𝖾𝗋𝖽𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝗉𝖾𝗇𝖺𝗌" 𝗉𝗈𝗋 𝖼𝖺𝗎𝗌𝖺 𝖽𝖺 𝗉𝖺𝗇𝖽𝖾𝗆𝗂𝖺 𝗌𝖾 𝗈𝗅𝗁𝖺𝗋 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝗈𝗌 𝖼𝗋𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗌 𝗉𝖾𝗅𝗈𝗌 𝗊𝗎𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺̃𝗈 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝖽𝖾𝗇𝖺𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝗈𝗌 𝗋𝖾𝖼𝗅𝗎𝗌𝗈𝗌 𝗉𝗈𝗋𝗍𝗎𝗀𝗎𝖾𝗌𝖾𝗌 𝖾 𝗌𝖾 𝗉𝖾𝗋𝖼𝖾𝖻𝖾𝗋 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗁𝖺́ 𝗉𝖾𝗌𝗌𝗈𝖺𝗌 𝖺 𝖼𝗎𝗆𝗉𝗋𝗂𝗋 𝗉𝖾𝗇𝖺𝗌 𝖺𝗍𝖾́ 𝖽𝗈𝗂𝗌 𝖺𝗇𝗈𝗌 𝗉𝗈𝗋 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝗍𝖾𝗋𝖾𝗆 𝗉𝖺𝗀𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝗆𝗎𝗅𝗍𝖺𝗌 𝗈𝗎 𝗉𝗈𝗋 𝖼𝗋𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝗉𝖾𝗋𝗂𝗀𝗈 𝖺𝖻𝗌𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗍𝗈 (𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗋𝖾𝗇𝖽𝗈 𝖽𝗂𝗓𝖾𝗋 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝗍𝗂𝗏𝖾𝗋𝖺𝗆 𝗏𝗂́𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖺𝗌 𝗇𝖾𝗆 𝖼𝖺𝗎𝗌𝖺𝗋𝖺𝗆 𝖽𝖺𝗇𝗈𝗌) 𝗅𝗂𝗀𝖺𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝖺𝗈 𝖢𝗈́𝖽𝗂𝗀𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝖤𝗌𝗍𝗋𝖺𝖽𝖺, 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗈 "𝖼𝗈𝗇𝖽𝗎𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝗌𝖾𝗆 𝖼𝖺𝗋𝗍𝖺" 𝗈𝗎 "𝖼𝗈𝗇𝖽𝗎𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝗉𝖾𝗋𝗂𝗀𝗈𝗌𝖺" - 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖾𝗌 𝖾𝗋𝖺𝗆 𝟣𝟢% 𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝗋𝖾𝖼𝗅𝗎𝗌𝗈𝗌 𝖾𝗆 𝟤𝟢𝟣𝟩, 𝖼𝖾𝗋𝖼𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝟣𝟥𝟢𝟢 -, 𝗂𝗌𝗌𝗈 𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗎𝗅𝗍𝖺 𝗆𝗎𝗂𝗍𝗈 𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗈𝗌 𝗋𝖾𝗍𝗎𝗆𝖻𝖺𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝖾 𝖽𝖾𝖼𝖾𝗋𝗍𝗈 "𝗏𝖾𝗇𝖽𝖾" 𝗆𝗎𝗂𝗍𝗈 𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖺𝖿𝗂𝗋𝗆𝖺𝗋 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖾𝗌𝗌𝖺 𝗆𝖾𝖽𝗂𝖽𝖺 𝗏𝖺𝗂 𝗅𝗂𝖻𝖾𝗋𝗍𝖺𝗋 𝗁𝗈𝗆𝗂𝖼𝗂𝖽𝖺𝗌 𝖾 𝗏𝗂𝗈𝗅𝖺𝖽𝗈𝗋𝖾𝗌, 𝖺𝗅𝗀𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗇𝖾𝗇𝗁𝗎𝗆 𝗃𝗈𝗋𝗇𝖺𝗅𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖺 𝗌𝖾́𝗋𝗂𝗈 𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗏𝖾𝗋𝗂𝖿𝗂𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗂𝗇𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗆𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝗉𝗈𝖽𝖾𝗋𝗂𝖺 𝖺𝖿𝗂𝗋𝗆𝖺𝗋, 𝗃𝖺́ 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗏𝖺 𝖾𝗌𝗉𝖾𝖼𝗂𝖿𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝖾𝗑𝖼𝖾𝖼𝗂𝗈𝗇𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝗇𝖺 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝗉𝗈𝗌𝗍𝖺. 𝖬𝖺𝗌 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗈 𝖾́ 𝗌𝖺𝖻𝗂𝖽𝗈 𝗁𝗈𝗎𝗏𝖾 𝖾𝗆 𝖯𝗈𝗋𝗍𝗎𝗀𝖺𝗅 𝗎𝗆 𝖽𝗂𝖺́𝗋𝗂𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖿𝖾𝗓 𝖽𝗂𝗌𝗌𝗈 𝖺 𝟣𝟢 𝖽𝖾 𝖺𝖻𝗋𝗂𝗅 𝗍𝗂́𝗍𝗎𝗅𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝗉𝗋𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗂𝗋𝖺 𝗉𝖺́𝗀𝗂𝗇𝖺: "𝖯𝗈𝗋𝗍𝖺 𝖺𝖻𝖾𝗋𝗍𝖺 𝖺̀ 𝗅𝗂𝖻𝖾𝗋𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝖽𝖾 𝖼𝗋𝗂𝗆𝗂𝗇𝗈𝗌𝗈𝗌 𝗏𝗂𝗈𝗅𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈𝗌 - 𝖨𝗇𝖽𝗎𝗅𝗍𝗈 𝖾𝗌𝗉𝖾𝖼𝗂𝖺𝗅 𝗉𝖾𝗋𝗆𝗂𝗍𝖾 𝗌𝖺𝗂́𝖽𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝗁𝗈𝗆𝗂𝖼𝗂𝖽𝖺𝗌 𝖾 𝗉𝖾𝖽𝗈́𝖿𝗂𝗅𝗈𝗌".

𝖤𝗌𝗍𝖾 𝗍𝗂́𝗍𝗎𝗅𝗈 𝖾 𝗈 𝗍𝖾𝗑𝗍𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗈 𝗌𝗎𝗉𝗈𝗋𝗍𝖺 𝗆𝖾𝗋𝖾𝖼𝖾𝗋𝖺𝗆 𝗎𝗆 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗂𝖽𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝖯𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗂𝖽𝖾̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺 𝖽𝖺 𝖱𝖾𝗉𝗎́𝖻𝗅𝗂𝖼𝖺 𝖾 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗂𝗑𝖺 𝖽𝗈 𝗀𝗋𝗎𝗉𝗈 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝗅𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺𝗋 𝖽𝗈 𝖯𝖲 𝖺̀ 𝖤𝗇𝗍𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝖱𝖾𝗀𝗎𝗅𝖺𝖽𝗈𝗋𝖺 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝖺 𝖢𝗈𝗆𝗎𝗇𝗂𝖼𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖲𝗈𝖼𝗂𝖺𝗅. 𝖲𝖾𝗍𝖾 𝖽𝗂𝖺𝗌 𝖽𝖾𝗉𝗈𝗂𝗌, 𝗉𝗈𝗋𝖾́𝗆, 𝗈𝗎𝗏𝗂𝗆𝗈𝗌 𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗋 𝖺 𝖲𝖺𝗇𝗍𝖺 𝖢𝖺𝗌𝖺 𝖽𝖺 𝖬𝗂𝗌𝖾𝗋𝗂𝖼𝗈́𝗋𝖽𝗂𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝖫𝗂𝗌𝖻𝗈𝖺, 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖾́ 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝗂𝗇𝗌𝗍𝗂𝗍𝗎𝗂𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝗍𝗎𝗍𝖾𝗅𝖺𝖽𝖺 𝗉𝖾𝗅𝗈 𝗀𝗈𝗏𝖾𝗋𝗇𝗈, 𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗋 𝗈 𝗉𝗋𝗈́𝗉𝗋𝗂𝗈 𝗀𝗈𝗏𝖾𝗋𝗇𝗈 𝖺𝗇𝗎𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺𝗋 𝖺𝗎𝗑𝗂́𝗅𝗂𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝖾𝗆𝖾𝗋𝗀𝖾̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝗈𝗌 𝗆𝖾𝖽𝗂𝖺 𝖾 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝗈 𝗃𝗈𝗋𝗇𝖺𝗅𝗂𝗌𝗆𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗂𝗇𝖼𝗅𝗎𝗂, 𝗇𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝗈𝗂𝗌 𝖼𝖺𝗌𝗈𝗌, 𝗈 𝖽𝗂𝖺́𝗋𝗂𝗈 𝖾𝗆 𝖼𝖺𝗎𝗌𝖺 - 𝗈 𝖢𝗈𝗋𝗋𝖾𝗂𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝖬𝖺𝗇𝗁𝖺̃ . 𝖢𝗈𝗆𝗈 𝗈 𝖼𝖺𝗇𝖺𝗅 𝖽𝖾 𝖳𝖵 𝖽𝗈 𝗆𝖾𝗌𝗆𝗈 𝗇𝗈𝗆𝖾, 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖾 𝖽𝗂𝖺́𝗋𝗂𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗉𝖺𝗌𝗌𝖺 𝖺 𝗏𝗂𝖽𝖺 𝖺 𝗉𝗎𝖻𝗅𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗋, 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗈 𝗇𝗈 𝖼𝖺𝗌𝗈 𝖼𝗂𝗍𝖺𝖽𝗈, 𝖿𝖺𝗅𝗌𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾𝗌 𝖾 𝖼𝖺𝗅𝗎́𝗇𝗂𝖺𝗌 (𝖽𝖾𝖼𝗅𝖺𝗋𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝗂𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗌𝖾𝗌: 𝗃𝖺́ 𝗈 𝖿𝖾𝗓 𝗌𝗈𝖻𝗋𝖾 𝗆𝗂𝗆 𝖾 𝖿𝗈𝗂 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝖽𝖾𝗇𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝗉𝗈𝗋 𝗂𝗌𝗌𝗈, 𝖾𝗆 𝖽𝖾𝖼𝗂𝗌𝖺̃𝗈 𝗋𝖾𝖼𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝖽𝗈 𝖳𝗋𝗂𝖻𝗎𝗇𝖺𝗅 𝖢𝗂́𝗏𝖾𝗅 𝖽𝖾 𝖫𝗂𝗌𝖻𝗈𝖺 𝖽𝖺 𝗊𝗎𝖺𝗅 𝗋𝖾𝖼𝗈𝗋𝗋𝖾𝗎) 𝖾 𝖺 𝖺𝗅𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺𝗋 𝗈́𝖽𝗂𝗈𝗌 𝖾 𝗂𝗀𝗇𝗈𝗋𝖺̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺 𝗇𝖾𝗆 𝗉𝗈𝗋 𝗂𝗌𝗌𝗈 𝖽𝖾𝗂𝗑𝖺𝗋𝖺́ 𝖽𝖾 𝗋𝖾𝖼𝖾𝖻𝖾𝗋 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝗍𝖾 𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝖿𝗎𝗇𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝗉𝗎́𝖻𝗅𝗂𝖼𝗈𝗌 𝖼𝗎𝗃𝖺 𝖽𝗂𝗌𝗉𝗈𝗇𝗂𝖻𝗂𝗅𝗂𝗓𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖾́ 𝖿𝖾𝗂𝗍𝖺 𝖾𝗆 𝗇𝗈𝗆𝖾 𝖽𝖺 "𝗌𝗎𝗌𝗍𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺𝖻𝗂𝗅𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝖽𝗈 𝗃𝗈𝗋𝗇𝖺𝗅𝗂𝗌𝗆𝗈", 𝖽𝖺 "𝗉𝗋𝗈𝗆𝗈𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝖿𝗈𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝗂𝗇𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗆𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖼𝗋𝖾𝖽𝗂́𝗏𝖾𝗅 𝖾 𝗏𝖺𝗅𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖺", 𝖽𝖺 "𝗅𝗂𝗍𝖾𝗋𝖺𝖼𝗂𝖺 𝗆𝖾𝖽𝗂𝖺́𝗍𝗂𝖼𝖺" 𝖾 𝖽𝗈 "𝖼𝗈𝗆𝖻𝖺𝗍𝖾 𝖺̀ 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝗂𝗇𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗆𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈". 𝖲𝖾𝗋𝖺́ 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝖽𝖺𝗌 𝖿𝗈𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗌 𝖺 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖦𝗋𝖺𝖼̧𝖺 𝖥𝗈𝗇𝗌𝖾𝖼𝖺, 𝗆𝗂𝗇𝗂𝗌𝗍𝗋𝖺 𝖽𝖺 𝖢𝗎𝗅𝗍𝗎𝗋𝖺, 𝗌𝖾 𝗋𝖾𝖿𝖾𝗋𝗂𝗎 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗈 𝖺𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗅𝖺𝗌 "𝗇𝖺𝗌 𝗊𝗎𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝗉𝗈𝖽𝖾𝗆𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝖺𝗋 𝖺̀𝗌 𝗉𝖾𝗌𝗌𝗈𝖺𝗌 𝖺 𝗀𝖺𝗋𝖺𝗇𝗍𝗂𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗉𝗈𝖽𝖾𝗆 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝖿𝗂𝖺𝗋".

𝖤́, 𝖾́ 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝗋𝗂𝗋. 𝖬𝖺𝗌 𝗈 𝖿𝖺𝖼𝗍𝗈 𝖾́ 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝗁𝖺𝗏𝗂𝖺 𝗈𝗎𝗍𝗋𝖺 𝗁𝗂𝗉𝗈́𝗍𝖾𝗌𝖾: 𝗂𝗇𝗌𝗍𝗂𝗍𝗎𝖼𝗂𝗈𝗇𝖺𝗅𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝗇𝖺𝖽𝖺 𝖽𝗂𝗌𝗍𝗂𝗇𝗀𝗎𝖾 𝗈 𝖢𝖬 𝖾 𝖺 𝖢𝖬𝖳𝖵 𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝗈𝗎𝗍𝗋𝗈𝗌 𝗆𝖾𝗂𝗈𝗌 𝗉𝗈𝗋𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗂𝗇𝗌𝗍𝗂𝗍𝗎𝖼𝗂𝗈𝗇𝖺𝗅𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝗈𝗌 𝗋𝖾𝗀𝗎𝗅𝖺𝖽𝗈𝗋𝖾𝗌 - 𝖺 𝖤𝖱𝖢 𝖾 𝖺 𝖢𝗈𝗆𝗂𝗌𝗌𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝖢𝖺𝗋𝗍𝖾𝗂𝗋𝖺 𝖯𝗋𝗈𝖿𝗂𝗌𝗌𝗂𝗈𝗇𝖺𝗅 𝖽𝖾 𝖩𝗈𝗋𝗇𝖺𝗅𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖺 - 𝗇𝗎𝗇𝖼𝖺 𝗎𝗌𝖺𝗋𝖺𝗆 𝗈 𝗉𝗈𝖽𝖾𝗋 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗅𝗁𝖾𝗌 𝖾́ 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝖿𝖾𝗋𝗂𝖽𝗈 𝗉𝖾𝗅𝖺 𝗅𝖾𝗂 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝖾𝖿𝖾𝗍𝗎𝖺𝗋 𝖾𝗌𝗌𝖺 𝖽𝗂𝗌𝗍𝗂𝗇𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈, 𝗍𝗈𝗋𝗇𝖺𝗇𝖽𝗈 𝖼𝗅𝖺𝗋𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖾𝗌 𝗆𝖾𝗂𝗈𝗌 𝗏𝗂𝗈𝗅𝖺𝗆 𝗌𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖾𝗆𝖺𝗍𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝖾𝗏𝖾𝗋𝖾𝗌 𝖺 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺̃𝗈 𝗈𝖻𝗋𝗂𝗀𝖺𝖽𝗈𝗌.

𝖤 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝗍𝖾𝗇𝖽𝗈 𝗂𝗌𝗌𝗈 𝗌𝗎𝖼𝖾𝖽𝗂𝖽𝗈 𝖼𝗁𝖾𝗀𝖺́𝗆𝗈𝗌 𝖺 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺 𝗌𝗂𝗍𝗎𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖾𝗅𝗂𝗋𝖺𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝖾𝗆 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗌𝖾 𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗆𝖾𝗂𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗆 𝖽𝗂𝗇𝗁𝖾𝗂𝗋𝗈𝗌 𝗉𝗎́𝖻𝗅𝗂𝖼𝗈𝗌 𝖾 𝖾𝗆 𝗇𝗈𝗆𝖾 𝖽𝗈 𝗂𝗇𝗏𝖾𝗌𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝗇𝗈 𝗃𝗈𝗋𝗇𝖺𝗅𝗂𝗌𝗆𝗈 𝖾 𝗇𝖺 𝖼𝗋𝖾𝖽𝗂𝖻𝗂𝗅𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝖽𝖺 𝗂𝗇𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗆𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝗈 𝗌𝖾𝗎 𝖺𝖻𝗌𝗈𝗅𝗎𝗍𝗈 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖺́𝗋𝗂𝗈. 𝖬𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝖺𝗍𝖾́: 𝗌𝖾 𝖻𝖾𝗆 𝗉𝖾𝗋𝖼𝖾𝖻𝗈 𝖺𝗌 𝗋𝖾𝗀𝗋𝖺𝗌 𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗇𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗌 𝖺̀ 𝗉𝗎𝖻𝗅𝗂𝖼𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝗂𝗇𝗌𝗍𝗂𝗍𝗎𝖼𝗂𝗈𝗇𝖺𝗅 𝖽𝗈 𝖤𝗌𝗍𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗏𝖺̃𝗈 𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗂𝖽𝗂𝗋 𝖺̀ 𝖽𝗂𝗌𝗍𝗋𝗂𝖻𝗎𝗂𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝟣𝟧 𝗆𝗂𝗅𝗁𝗈̃𝖾𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝖾𝗎𝗋𝗈𝗌 𝖺𝗇𝗎𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝗉𝖾𝗅𝗈 𝖬𝗂𝗇𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖾́𝗋𝗂𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝖢𝗎𝗅𝗍𝗎𝗋𝖺 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝗌𝗈𝖼𝗈𝗋𝗋𝖾𝗋 𝗈 𝗌𝖾𝗍𝗈𝗋, 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺 𝖾𝖿𝖾𝗍𝗎𝖺𝗋-𝗌𝖾-𝖺́ 𝗍𝖾𝗇𝖽𝗈 𝖾𝗆 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝖺 𝗈 𝗉𝖾𝗌𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝖼𝖺𝖽𝖺 𝗆𝖾𝗂𝗈 𝗇𝗈 𝗆𝖾𝗋𝖼𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝖾𝗆 𝗍𝖾𝗋𝗆𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝗍𝗂𝗋𝖺𝗀𝖾𝗆, 𝗏𝖾𝗇𝖽𝖺𝗌, 𝗈𝗎𝗏𝗂𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗌 𝗈𝗎 𝖾𝗌𝗉𝖾𝖼𝗍𝖺𝖽𝗈𝗋𝖾𝗌. 𝖫𝗈𝗀𝗈, 𝗈 𝖢𝗈𝗋𝗋𝖾𝗂𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝖬𝖺𝗇𝗁𝖺̃, 𝖼𝖺𝗆𝗉𝖾𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝗏𝖾𝗇𝖽𝖺𝗌, 𝗋𝖾𝖼𝖾𝖻𝖾𝗋𝖺́ 𝗎𝗆 𝗊𝗎𝗂𝗇𝗁𝖺̃𝗈 𝗌𝗎𝗉𝖾𝗋𝗂𝗈𝗋 𝖺𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝖽𝗎𝗍𝗈𝗌 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖼𝗎𝗆𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗆 𝖺𝗌 𝗋𝖾𝗀𝗋𝖺𝗌 𝖾 𝗋𝖾𝖺𝗅𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾, 𝗆𝖺𝗅𝗀𝗋𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝖾𝗋𝗋𝗈𝗌 𝖾 𝖽𝖾𝖻𝗂𝗅𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾𝗌 𝗂𝗇𝖾𝗀𝖺́𝗏𝖾𝗂𝗌, 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝖼𝗎𝗋𝖺𝗆 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝖽𝗎𝗓𝗂𝗋 𝗂𝗇𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗆𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖼𝗋𝖾𝖽𝗂́𝗏𝖾𝗅 
𝖾 𝗏𝖺𝗅𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖺.

𝖧𝖺𝗏𝖾𝗋𝖺́ 𝗈 𝖽𝗂𝖺, 𝖾 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝖺𝗇𝖽𝖺𝗋𝖺́ 𝗅𝗈𝗇𝗀𝖾, 𝖾𝗆 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗋𝖺́ 𝗇𝗎𝗆 𝗆𝖾𝗋𝖼𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝖾𝗆 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖼𝖺𝖽𝖺 𝗏𝖾𝗓 𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗈𝗌 𝗀𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝗏𝖺𝗅𝗈𝗋𝗂𝗓𝖺 𝗈 𝗃𝗈𝗋𝗇𝖺𝗅𝗂𝗌𝗆𝗈 𝗈𝗎 𝗌𝖾𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗋 𝗌𝖺𝖻𝖾 𝖽𝗂𝗌𝗍𝗂𝗇𝗀𝗎𝗂-𝗅𝗈 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗈 𝗉𝗋𝖺́𝗍𝗂𝖼𝖺 𝖾 𝖾́𝗍𝗂𝖼𝖺 𝗌𝖾𝗋𝖺̃𝗈 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝖽𝗎𝗍𝗈𝗌 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗈 𝗈 𝖢𝗈𝗋𝗋𝖾𝗂𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝖬𝖺𝗇𝗁𝖺̃. 𝖳𝖺𝖻𝗅𝗈𝗂𝖽𝖾𝗌 𝖼𝗎𝗃𝖺 𝗂𝗇𝖿𝗅𝗎𝖾̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺, 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗈 𝖺𝗅𝗀𝗎𝗆𝖺𝗌 𝗂𝗇𝗏𝖾𝗌𝗍𝗂𝗀𝖺𝖼̧𝗈̃𝖾𝗌 𝖼𝗂𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗂́𝖿𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗌𝗂𝗇𝖽𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗆 (𝖾 𝗌𝖾 𝗏𝖾𝗋𝗂𝖿𝗂𝖼𝖺 𝖺 𝗈𝗅𝗁𝗈 𝗇𝗎), 𝖾́ 𝗇𝗈𝗍𝗈́𝗋𝗂𝖺 𝗇𝖺 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝗆𝗈𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝗅𝗂́𝖽𝖾𝗋𝖾𝗌 𝖾 𝗂𝖽𝖾𝗂𝖺𝗌 𝗉𝗈𝗉𝗎𝗅𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗌 𝖾 𝗇𝗈𝗌 𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗎𝗅𝗍𝖺𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝖾𝗅𝖾𝗂𝗍𝗈𝗋𝖺𝗂𝗌; 𝗆𝖾𝗂𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝖾𝗇𝗏𝖾𝗇𝖾𝗇𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝖾 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝗍𝗋𝗎𝗂𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝖽𝖾𝗆𝗈𝖼𝗋𝖺𝖼𝗂𝖺. 𝖣𝗂𝗌𝗌𝗈 𝗌𝖾𝗋𝖾𝗆𝗈𝗌 𝗍𝗈𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗉𝗈𝗇𝗌𝖺́𝗏𝖾𝗂𝗌 - 𝗉𝗈𝗋𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝖺𝗇𝖽𝗈 𝗉𝗈𝖽𝗂́𝖺𝗆𝗈𝗌 𝖾𝗌𝖼𝗈𝗅𝗁𝖾𝗋 𝖺𝖼𝗁𝖺́𝗆𝗈𝗌 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗈 𝗃𝗈𝗋𝗇𝖺𝗅𝗂𝗌𝗆𝗈 𝖾́ 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗂𝗌𝖺 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖼𝖺𝗂 𝖽𝗈 𝖼𝖾́𝗎, 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗇𝗈𝗌 𝖺𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖾𝖼𝖾 𝗇𝖺 𝗂𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗋𝗇𝖾𝗍 𝖽𝖾 𝗀𝗋𝖺𝖼̧𝖺. 𝖴𝗆𝖺 𝖾𝗌𝗉𝖾́𝖼𝗂𝖾 𝖽𝖾 𝗌𝖺𝗇𝗍𝖺 𝖼𝖺𝗌𝖺. 𝖯𝗈𝗂𝗌 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝖾́: 𝗈𝗌 𝗃𝗈𝗋𝗇𝖺𝗅𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗌 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝗉𝗈𝖽𝖾𝗆 𝗌𝖾𝗋 𝗏𝗈𝗅𝗎𝗇𝗍𝖺́𝗋𝗂𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝖺 𝗏𝖾𝗋𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾; 𝗍𝖾̂𝗆 𝖽𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝖾𝗋. 𝖤 𝖺𝗌 𝖾𝗆𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗌𝖺𝗌 𝗃𝗈𝗋𝗇𝖺𝗅𝗂́𝗌𝗍𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗌 𝗈𝗎 𝗌𝖺̃𝗈 𝗌𝗎𝗌𝗍𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺́𝗏𝖾𝗂𝗌 𝗈𝗎 𝖿𝖾𝖼𝗁𝖺𝗆 - 𝗈𝗎 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗂𝗇𝗎𝖺𝗆 𝗍𝖾𝗇𝖽𝗈 𝗈𝗎𝗍𝗋𝗈𝗌 𝗆𝖾𝗂𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝖿𝗂𝗇𝖺𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝖾 𝗈𝗎𝗍𝗋𝗈𝗌 𝗂𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗌𝖾𝗌 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝗈 𝗃𝗈𝗋𝗇𝖺𝗅𝗂𝗌𝗆𝗈. 𝖬𝗂𝗅𝖺𝗀𝗋𝖾𝗌 𝖾́ 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝗁𝖺́.

* Jornalista

IN "DIÁRIO DE NOTÍCIAS"
18/04/20

.