Discriminação racial publicitária: apontamentos dos julgados do Conselho Nacional de Autorregulamentação Publicitária (CONAR)

• Ano de defesa: 2012
• Autor(a) principal: Paulo, Mônica Bispo
• Orientador(a): Machado, Marta Rodriguez de Assis
• Tipo de documento: Dissertação
• Tipo de acesso: Acesso aberto
• Idioma: por
• Palavras-chave em Português: Discriminação racial; Ausência de representatividade negra; Publicidade; CONAR
• Palavras-chave em Inglês: Racial discrimination; Lack of black representation; Advertising
• Link de acesso: http://hdl.handle.net/10438/10384

This empirical and qualitative research sought to examine the processes of ethical CONAR in which were discussed the practice of racial discrimination in advertisements. This study aimed to understand how CONAR identified the occurrence of it. For its rulings, the self-regulation court provides a mixed legal system, ie, the judgment of infringement was based on advertising ethics code Brazilian Advertising Self-Regulation - CBARP in the Federal Constitution and other national laws. Thus we present a brief survey of legislative norms that guided federal racial discrimination in the media: Article 20 of Law Cao (Law No. 7.716/1989) and Articles 44 and 45 of the Racial Equality Statute (Law 12.288/2010). Subsequently, we selected the cases judged by CONAR who was asked about the practice of racial discrimination from 1980 to 2011, having been selected 24 ethical processes. We have identified the characteristics of those cases considered by the ads CONAR, under considered by the ads CONAR, under which arguments and under what circumstances this selfregulation agency had filed the procedure or imputed accountability measures. Moreover, the survey noted cases that have addressed the issue of mandatory representation of black racial people in commercials as a foreknowledge of the Racial Equality Statute. As a perspective, we used the categories of Antonio Sérgio Alfredo Guimarães and theory of media Muniz Sodré. CONAR found racial discrimination in 5 cases, and 19 were filed where the agency did not recognized any ethical breach. From these decisions there were 4 cases that had any appeal, but only in in one among them thare was a change of decision by CONAR: the change of restraining penalty for filing. Yet the 3 cases that had been maintained resource decisions: 1 filing, 1 penalty alteration and 1 restraining penalty.