Introduction

Civil society organizations¹ have occupied a prominent place in national education policies, being considered legitimate institutions for evaluating, analyzing, and proposing public policies. In part, this prominence came about in the 1990s, when there was a process of legal and political institutionalization of the participation of civil society organizations, such as Non-Governmental Organizations, in public policies (^{Landim, 2002}; ^{Lima Neto, 2013}; ^{Moreno, 2016}).

In Brazil, the presence of such organizations to deal with educational policies has been considered natural and even desirable, being seen as an indication of democracy. However, few groups achieve this position. For this article, we have chosen two organizations that declare themselves to be part of civil society and have been active in the debate and on the agenda of Brazilian education policies in recent years: Todos pela Educação (All for Education) and the Campanha Nacional pelo Direito à Educação (National Campaign for the Right to Education).

The prominent place that these organizations have occupied can be seen in the recent participation of their representatives in the Luis Inácio Lula da Silva (current president of Brazil) government’s transition committee in the area of education. The two groups have also actively participated in discussions such as the High School Reform, the National Common Curriculum Base (BNCC), the postponement of the National High School Exam (Enem) during the pandemic, among other issues relating to national education.

Generally, education scholars who research both groups tend to analyze them from the perspective of public policies, focusing on their actions and the effects of their actions on policies (^{Araújo, Nascimento, 2020}; ^{Cêa, Silva, Santos, 2019}; ^{Deitos, 2019}; ^{Evangelista; Leher, 2012}; ^{Martins, Krawczy, 2018}; ^{Santos, 2020}; ^{Ribeiro; Klemann; Ribeiro, 2017}; ^{Nascimento, 2021}; ^{Carreira, 2006}).

In this paper, we seek to understand how these organizations achieved the legitimacy to be authorized to deal with national education policies. Although we believe that the answer to this question is complex and multifaceted, we have focused on a dimension that has been little considered – the relationship between journalism and the production of legitimacy for these organizations and their representatives.

It is worth remembering that the authority to act in this political space was previously conferred mostly on politicians, those working in public administration and academics, and the entry of these education organizations has made the struggle for education policies more complex.

We consider it important to recognize the ways in which journalism seeks to produce effects on the field of politics, by naturalizing the perception that these organizations and their representatives are legitimate spokespeople for national education policies. After all, who do they represent?

The relationship between journalism and its effects on the field of politics has already been pointed out by theorists such as ^{Bourdieu (2011)}. In the case of Brazilian scholars, ^{Petraca’s work (2010)} shows how the process of institutionalizing the journalism profession in Brazil has also become a way of acting politically. This interaction between the media and politics has been observed by political scientists such as ^{Miguel (2002)}. The researcher points out that the production of symbolic capital by the media is essential to produce political capital, since the media has the capacity to give visibility to certain themes and agendas to increase the political capital of certain individuals through interviews and their statements.

From this perspective, we understand that journalistic discourse contributes to the naturalization of the view that these organizations and their representatives are the spokespeople authorized to speak about education and, for this reason, are constantly invited to speak in mass-circulation newspapers and by representatives of the political field. As Bourdieu points out:

It is a very important social fact that nowadays you can only access the public space through the mediation of journalism. You must write for newspapers, appear on television, take part in debates, write books. There is an extraordinary concentration of power in the media (^{Bourdieu, 2011, p. 212}).

If, on the one hand, journalism ends up interfering in the production of certain perceptions in the field of politics, on the other, it is also recognized by scholars in the field of social movements as a strategy for accessing public opinion (^{Granjon, 2009}) and those in the field of politics (^{Bourdieu, 2011, p. 209}).

In other words, from ^{Bourdieu’s perspective (2000)}, the organizations themselves carry out political work to construct their images and representations. This means that journalists put these groups and their representatives on the agenda for newspaper stories on education at the same time as they want to occupy space in the media to build their own images and take part in the struggles and impose their worldviews on education.

Therefore, in the search to answer questions about the construction of legitimacy of the two organizations through journalism and questioning the political work to gain authority in the media and interfere in the field of politics, this study used as a documentary source (a) the collection of three large-circulation newspapers (O Globo, O Estado de S. Paulo, and Folha de S. Paulo) and (b) the activity reports of each organization.

The search in the archives of the three newspapers used the period from 2016 to 2019 as a selection criterion. We used the names and surnames of the representatives of the two organizations (Priscila Cruz and Daniel Cara²) as keywords in the search, since the search for the name of the organizations does not appear in the same way in the three archives.

In a second step, the search was broadened and began in 2000. It is important to mention that the search pattern in this new survey was different from the previous one, as the representatives had not been at the head of the organization since its creation. As a result, the names of the organizations were used as search keywords (Todos pela Educação [All for Education] and Campanha Nacional pelo Direito à Educação [National Campaign for the Right to Education]), in addition to the names of the representatives. However, only O Estado de S. Paulo archive turned up articles with the names of the organizations.

In the end, we put together a spreadsheet with a total of 630 articles, systematized for analysis, asking questions about the visibility given by the newspapers to the representatives and the two organizations, the way they present and designate each one and the mechanism for building their authority. Discussions on these points are presented in the first three sections of the text. The fourth section focuses on the analysis of the reports of the two civil society organizations, in order to explain the movement of each of them towards the media in their quest to achieve visibility. We consulted the online activity reports produced by each organization (Todos pela Educação [All for Education] from 2007 to 2021 and Campanha Nacional pelo Direito à Educação [National Campaign for the Right to Education] from 2019 to 2021³).

The construction of visibility and the unequal hierarchization of civil society organizations

We believe that occupying the pages of mass-circulation newspapers is an indication of visibility, since there is a whole process of selecting who and what subjects will be in the news. Therefore, we considered the number of articles published annually between 2000 and 2019 as an indicator to understand, from a longitudinal perspective, both the visibility of these civil society organizations in newspapers and the prominence given to the two organizations.

Considering the number of publications per year, it can be seen that from 2012 onwards the volume of articles is much higher than in previous years. Although in some years, after 2012, there was a decrease in the number of articles, the numbers were always higher than in the years before 2011, when there were less than twenty (table 1).

It is worth noting that each organization was founded in different years – the National Campaign for the Right to Education was founded in 1999, while All for Education was founded in 2006. Despite this difference, the two organizations started appearing in the news only two years apart, since the National Campaign has articles dating back to 2004, while All for Education has been in the news since the year it was founded, 2006 (table 1). Regardless of when each organization began to appear on the pages of newspapers, the frequency of both effectively increased from 2012 onwards.

It is quite common to find statements of both organizations appearing in the same article, as they are often called upon to give their points of view on the same subject. However, this does not mean that they have the same visibility. Although both have appeared on the pages of the three newspapers over the years, the number of articles is significantly different between the two organizations and their representatives, especially after 2016 (table 1), a period in which the most common themes were two very controversial issues: the reform of High School education and the National Common Curriculum Base (BNCC). On these issues, All for Education and the National Campaign for the Right to Education often showed different positions on the issues.

Comparatively, there are more publications with All for Education than with the National Campaign for the Right to Education (table 1), which means that the visibility given to each and their points of view are different.

In 211 of the 630 texts found, the name “Daniel Cara” appears in the search and “National Campaign for the Right to Education” appears in 4. The articles found with the term “Priscila Cruz” totaled 370 and “All for Education”, 45. This means that All for Education, either as an organization or in the figure of its representative, took up more than 65% of the stories in the newspaper archives (table 1).

When we compare the number of All for Education stories per year with those of the National Campaign for the Right to Education in each newspaper’s collection (table 2), we see that it is in O Estado de S. Paulo that All for Education plays the biggest role, as it has the highest number of stories published about the institution (195). The prominent place given to All for Education by the newspaper has been noticeable since its foundation (in 2006), which was not the case with the National Campaign for the Right to Education.

The newspaper Estado de S. Paulo announced in an article:

Businesspeople and educators argued yesterday, during the launch of the All for Education movement, for 5% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to be earmarked for basic education in Brazil. [...] The All for Education commitment is made up of the country’s biggest business leaders. Yesterday, they announced five goals that must be achieved by 2022 – the year in which the bicentenary of Independence is celebrated (^{Cafardo, 2006, p. 18}).

The announcement of the emergence of All for Education is yet another demonstration that the newspaper acts in partnership with the civil society organization, which is predominantly made up of businesspeople.

This alliance has continued over time, given that we found on All for Education’s Instagram the publication of various materials promoting the events entitled “Dialogues: Education Now” in 2020. In these materials, the logo of the newspaper O Estado de S. Paulo is next to the logo of All for Education, indicating that these groups were promoting the events together. The purpose of these activities was to debate the education projects of the candidates for mayor of São Paulo, which seems to indicate that the coalition between newspaper companies and civil society organizations functions as one of the mechanisms by which both operate in the field of politics.

Since the early years of All for Education’s foundation, the relationship with journalism companies has been prioritized, either through the organization’s closeness to some journalists or through partnerships with large mass media networks. It is worth considering that José Roberto Marinho, a shareholder in the Globo Group, is a founding partner of the institution and was the coordinator of the communications committee, which shows that All for Education was formed with the dimension of the mass media in mind as a political performance (Moreira, 2013).

According to ^{Miguel (2002)}, the media is a sphere of political representation and a space for fighting for the construction and legitimization of representations of the social world, and can be associated with certain groups and specific interests. Thus, the predominance of All for Education in journalistic discourse is also related to the fact that the representations and conceptions mobilized by the organization correspond to the interests of both certain media groups, such as Grupo Globo, and certain journalism groups, such as O Estado de S. Paulo, which has always given greater visibility to All for Education and its representatives when it comes to national education policies.

We can see that, in the case of All for Education, there is an intertwining of the political, economic and media fields. This is because the organization has several Brazilian businessmen who have high economic capital. It is an organization that can be understood, from the perspective of some scholars, as part of the private apparatus of business hegemony (^{Fontes, 2020}). However, “[...] the colonization of the media company by economic logic does not occur in the form of a struggle for the market, but in the deliberate pursuit of certain political results” (^{Miguel, 2002, p. 181}). In other words, the group does not use its economic capital to participate in struggles in the economic field, but rather to influence struggles in the political arena.

Language in the construction of political representation: the power to name groups

If journalism is a battleground for the construction and legitimization of representations of the social world, it is through language that we find some of its battles. ^{Bourdieu (2008)} considers that

[...] there are no neutral words [...], because they [...] often have different meanings, sometimes opposite, according to class [...], and in the view that “neutralized language” establishes [...] a practical consensus between agents or groups of agents with partially or totally different interests; that is, [...] in the field of legitimate political struggle, but also in the transactions and interactions of everyday life [...] (^{Bourdieu, 2008, p. 26}).

So we decided to ask ourselves how newspapers construct the representation of these two organizations, analyzing how they characterize and present them.

From this perspective, we need to reflect on the use of the terms we use in this text to refer to the two organizations in question. From an academic point of view, we sought to frame this work within studies on the participation of civil society organizations in educational policies, initially thinking specifically about Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs)⁴ and, therefore, choosing All for Education and the National Campaign for the Right to Education as the object of study.

From a legal point of view, these groups are registered as associations. However, recognizing that the term NGO: (i) is not a legal nomenclature, although it is widely used around the world, especially by multilateral organizations (Ladim, 2002; ^{Buclet, 2004}), (ii) that it is a terminology that aggregates a heterogeneous set of organizations (^{Teixeira, 2003}; ^{Moreno, 2016}) and (iii) that it is a vocabulary that has been little used in academic publications⁵, we have opted to use the term civil society organizations, (interest) groups⁶, or the name of each institution itself in the text. We also recognize that the term civil society is the target of disputes and struggles over its meaning.

It is worth noting that both groups present themselves as civil society organizations. A very heterogeneous set of associations is grouped under this nomenclature, which has generated studies in search of a better understanding of this diversity (Ipea, 2018; Mello, Pereira, 2023).

All for Education also recognizes itself as a Non-Governmental Organization (NGO), which can be seen in the award it received in 2019 for “Best NGO of the Year”. The National Campaign for the Right to Education, on the other hand, although it does not declare itself as an NGO, or advertise its image as such, presents itself as the founder of the Global Campaign for Education⁷, an organization born from the articulation of various civil society organizations from around the world, in the name of defending and promoting education as a basic human right. This form of action, which is articulated internationally, is a widespread model of NGO performance (^{Buclet, 2004}).

Despite the terms and qualifications for their involvement in political struggles, we noticed from the data collected in the archives of the three newspapers that journalism did a real job of building the authority of these organizations by citing only their names, rather than linking them to civil society representations or classifying them under some name such as NGOs.

In most of the newspaper articles, the organizations are presented by their own names (339 out of a total of 580⁸, with 157 referring to All for Education and 182 to the National Campaign for the Right to Education). This does not mean that in some articles they are not linked to a specific name (237 articles link All for Education to some characterization and 4 articles do the same in relation to the National Campaign for the Right to Education). In the case of All for Education, there was greater variability in the forms of mention, with a total of eleven: movement (152), NGO (63), commitment (5), institute (4), movement and commitment (3), movement and NGO (1), organization (3), civil society organization (2), program (1), project (1), entity (1) and group (1). The National Campaign for the Right to Education was related to three terms: entity (2), civil society organization (1), and network (1).

The variety of words used to describe All for Education seems to indicate that the organization is seen in different ways, since it is described using a fluid, fairly generic vocabulary, but with a certain degree of acceptability (“commitment”, “movement”, “program”, “project” are good examples). On the other hand, we have the National Campaign for the Right to Education, which has a small number of qualifications. Despite the difference, both organizations did not have any qualifications added to their names in most of the articles. This data indicates that although these organizations are registered as associations, their strength and legitimacy are built into the journalistic discourse through their names.

Through the language used, the newspapers show that the two organizations are considered legitimate for dealing with public education policies, regardless of the “labels” they are given, such as civil society organizations, NGOs, or associations. The strength and legitimacy of each organization comes from their own names, so that they are authorized to speak, evaluate, and propose public education policies, even though they are not governmental or academic institutions.

But if the authority of these organizations is not associated in the newspapers with civil society – a term widely used by the Brazilian State to make partnerships –, where does this legitimacy come from?

Expertise as legitimization capital

If the newspapers have given visibility to these two organizations, building their recognition by their names, part of this legitimacy is attributed to their ability to respond to educational issues using data production resources and research in the area. In the pages of the newspapers, policy proposals, opinions and evaluations are based on the results of research and work carried out by each organization.

This characteristic of the two organizations is the same in both, even though they often have different perspectives on education. One of the action strategies of the National Campaign for the Right to Education is the production of knowledge, understood as “producing technical and political support for actions by conducting opinion polls; producing and systematizing information, analyses and technical notes; producing and publishing booklets and books, as well as other materials”⁹. All for Education uses the term “advocacy” to “produce knowledge and draw up proposals” through “strategically effective” action, and, in this sense, produces data for “monitoring results and processes for implementing educational policies”, which is the way “to deepen diagnoses and feed the production of knowledge”¹⁰.

Under the justification of technical knowledge, mobilizing scientific vocabulary, these organizations impose their authority and legitimacy. However, it is the representatives of each group who bring these ideas to life in news stories, which makes them legitimate spokespeople to talk about national education policies.

Daniel Cara, who held the position of general coordinator at the National Campaign for the Right to Education, and Priscila Cruz, who is executive president of All for Education, are constantly called upon to issue opinions, evaluations and present proposals on education representing these organizations.

Thus, understanding that journalistic discourse, as part of the media, is configured as a construction of legitimacy, we analyzed the way in which the articles present these representatives. In most of the articles (534), the representatives are addressed by their positions. In a smaller number, the representatives are also referred to as specialists (46), which seems to indicate, on the one hand, that their strength is directly associated with the name of the institution and, on the other hand, that the institution uses the credentials of these individuals to enhance its legitimacy.

In the case of the National Campaign for the Right to Education, Daniel Cara holds a doctorate in education from the University of São Paulo (USP), a master’s degree in political science and a bachelor’s degree in social sciences from the same university, as high academic credentials. He participated as a full member of the National Youth Council¹¹ (2005-2007), circulating in the world of public policies. He was a full member of the National Education Forum¹² (2010-2016) of the Steering Committee of the Latin American Campaign for the Right to Education¹³ (2009-2012), and is recognized nationally and internationally for her committed work in the world of associations. He was also a columnist for UOL Educação (2012-2018) and had a blog in Revista Educação [Education Magazine] (2010-2012), participating in the media space. For his actions on behalf of promoting and defending education, he has been recognized by the public authorities, winning the Darcy Ribeiro Education Award in 2015¹⁴. In 2018, he stood as a senate candidate for the Socialism and Freedom Party (PSOL), indicating his interest in professional politics. Since March 2020, he has been a professor at University of São Paulo (USP), when he left his position as general coordinator of the National Campaign for the Right to Education, where he had worked since June 2006.

As we can see, more than his academic credentials in the social sciences and political science, as well as in education, Daniel Cara is a multi-positioned individual who has circulated in different spaces, from the militant world through associative engagement, to positions in public policy debate as a representative of civil society, and later to running for office in professional politics. It is worth noting that he had already been an active contributor to the media since 2010, holding the position of columnist in a highly visible media outlet from 2012 to 2018, a period that coincides with the greatest presence of articles about these organizations in the newspapers surveyed.

As for the executive president of All for Education, Priscila Cruz has a master’s degree in public administration from the Harvard Kennedy School of Government, a degree in business administration from the Getúlio Vargas Foundation (FGV-SP) and a law degree from the University of São Paulo (USP). Although her highest qualification is a master’s degree, she studied at a highly prestigious international institution. In the associative world, she was the founder and general coordinator of the Instituto Faça Parte (Make Part Institute)¹⁵ (2002-2006), a member of the Fundação Itaú de Educação e Cultura (Itaú Foundation for Education and Culture)¹⁶ and the Rodrigo Mendes Institute¹⁷, all institutions linked to the business sector, as well as the Museum of Modern Art (MAM) in São Paulo. Her international credentials also come from institutions such as the United Nations (UN), where she became coordinator of the International Year of Volunteers in Brazil (2001)¹⁸. In public institutions, she is a member of the Councils of the Department of Judicial Research of the National Council of Justice (DPJ/CNJ)¹⁹. Academically, she is also a member of the Grupo de Estudos de Educação do Instituto de Estudos Avançados da Unicamp (Education Study Group of the Institute for Advanced Studies at Unicamp), the Centro de Estudos de Educação e Inovação em Educação da FGV-RJ (Center for Education Studies and Innovation in Education at FGV-RJ) and the Instituto Singularidades (Singularities Institute)²⁰. For her work, she was awarded the Darcy Ribeiro Education Prize in 2012.

Although both representatives have academic credentials, are engaged in the associative world, participate in public administration spaces, and circulate in international spaces, their different backgrounds place them in different circuits. In the case of Priscila Cruz, a background in law, especially in administration, places her in a perspective aligned with the vision of the business world, that is why her work in All for Education and other associative groups is closely linked to the business and financial sector. In the case of Daniel Cara, his background in the social sciences, combined with his involvement in associative groups, places him in a circuit linked to the world of social mobilizations.

Despite the differences, both representatives were called upon by the newspapers, signing articles on various educational topics. Out of 580 articles, 500 were signed by the newspaper and 80 by the organizations’ representatives. Even though this is not a significant number, having articles signed directly by their representatives shows the legitimacy of the opinions expressed by these organizations (table 3).

A more detailed analysis of the pages of the newspapers shows that, in addition to the space given to the representatives – either by signing or by issuing their positions in the articles – all the newspapers promoted events at which Priscila Cruz and Daniel Cara were present, once again legitimizing their opinions.

It was possible to count a total of 8 events, between 2016 and 2019, that were attended by Priscila Cruz, and only one with Daniel Cara, reinforcing that the news companies favored one of the organizations over the other (table 4). The only event (Education 360°) that Daniel Cara attended in 2018 was alongside Priscila Cruz.

As can be seen in table 4, several of these activities addressed issues relating to basic education policies and generated major public debates at the time. High school reform is one example.

At the “Estadão Forum” (2017 and 2018 editions), Priscila Cruz debated, respectively, the changes resulting from the high school reform and the results of the Basic Education Assessment System (SAEB). At the event “E agora, Brasil?” [What now, Brazil?] (2018), held by the newspaper O Globo, Priscila Cruz discussed the impact of investment in education on economic development. At the same newspaper’s “Education 360º” event (2018 and 2019 editions), the All for Education representative discussed preparing young people for the job market and the role of technology in implementing the new high school education system. At the “Educational Innovation” event (2016, 2017 and 2018 editions), promoted by the Folha de S. Paulo newspaper, the CEO took part in the following debates: “The role of the teacher following the reform of secondary education, the dichotomy between theory and practice in teacher formation”, and “Innovative Teaching models”. We note a debate on education much more focused on the job market and economic development. Daniel Cara, for his part, at the “Education 360º” event (2018 edition), debated the main effects of the National Common Curriculum Base (BNCC) on literacy and assessment models, from a humanist perspective.

As we have already seen before, the events organized by the newspapers give greater prominence to All for Education and Priscila Cruz.

As well as taking part in events, the representatives were nominated for awards also promoted by the newspapers. In 2012, Priscila Cruz was nominated for and won the Young Leadership Award, promoted by O Estado de S. Paulo. In 2013, the National Campaign’s representative, Daniel Cara, was nominated for the “Prêmio Faz Diferença” (Making a Difference Award), promoted by O Globo, in the education category, recognizing the importance of this interlocutor, even though he did not win.

What we noticed is that this space for some organizations to enter national public education policies requires the presence of individuals and groups with high academic credentials, a multi-positioned space in politics, from the associative world to public administration.

The three newspapers have done a real job of building the authority and legitimacy of these two organizations and their representatives, either by giving greater prominence to the names of the institutions, or by calling on their representatives to sign articles, take part in events or be nominated for awards. At the same time, the newspapers’ work in building the authority and legitimacy of the two institutions is also in line with their desire to achieve such a position.

The activity reports of the two organizations demonstrate this movement. Both count in their reports the number of times they appear in the media, from newspaper articles to television and radio, as well as recording the reach of their publicity through visits to their websites and posts on social media such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, Linkedin and Telegram. The efforts of these two organizations show how important the media is for them to be able to take part in political battles without their presence being questioned.

Final considerations

The analysis of the materials showed that the major newspapers do a real job of building up the image of each organization and its representatives as experts in national education policies. The frequency with which the organizations appear in the pages of the newspapers over time, the vocabulary used to address each group and its representatives, as well as the events and awards organized by the newspapers with the presence of the representatives indicate the way in which the newspapers make the presence of these institutions natural and legitimate on the national education policy scene.

This legitimacy is partly based on the social characteristics and circulation networks of the representatives, indicating high credentials in elite spaces, such as international spaces, academic credentials, work in associations and public administration. This similarity does not erase the differences between the organizations, which are present in different social circuits and have different positions. Daniel Cara and the National Campaign for the Right to Education are part of a network linked to social movements, while Priscila Cruz and All for Education are part of the business circuit.

These differences mean that the groups do not have the same visibility on the pages of the newspapers, as we can see throughout the text. The very intrinsic relationship between All for Education and various media outlets, including O Estado de S. Paulo, shows that it is no coincidence that this organization occupies the pages of newspapers more frequently.