In July, when Itaú launched its Factópoles blog to challenge a series of 42 articles and roughly 50 social media posts published by Metrópoles, according to the bank’s own tally, I wrote in this column that the dispute carried two risks: the ability of a powerful bank to intimidate journalists, and the possibility of a news outlet turning aggressive coverage into a tool of pressure. Three months later, messages involving former banker Daniel Vorcaro, disclosed by the Brazilian press, raise an even more troubling question: could the campaign waged by Luiz Estevão’s Metrópoles against Itaú have been connected to the business interests of Banco Master’s owner? There is no evidence establishing that direct link, but the messages show that Vorcaro had influence over editorial decisions at Metrópoles and sought to use other media outlets against his adversaries.
The revelations that emerged this Thursday, October 15, make that question particularly relevant. Banco Master signed a R$20 million advertising contract with Metrópoles while its owner enjoyed privileged access to the outlet’s editorial content. According to Brazilian news website UOL, at least 14 articles were submitted to Vorcaro before publication, 11 of which were changed following his requests. His exchanges with Lilian Tahan, the outlet’s CEO, reveal suggestions for headlines, the removal of information and discussions about publication timing. Tahan denies that commercial agreements influenced the coverage. Yet the access and influence documented in those messages go well beyond what would normally be expected in a relationship between an advertiser and an independent newsroom. In light of these revelations, the media battle waged by Metrópoles against Itaú deserves renewed scrutiny, including whether outside interests may have shaped its editorial agenda.
Vorcaro’s history reinforces the need for that scrutiny. In September 2024, while discussing an investigation into Master by Brazilian magazine piauí, Frederic Kachar, then a senior executive at Grupo Globo who was dismissed this Thursday, remarked that “piauí has become a magazine devoted to exposés.” The following month, Vorcaro claimed the market had interpreted the article as a piece commissioned by Itaú. Kachar replied: “If the market saw it as commissioned by Itaú, so much the better.” Neither presented evidence that the bank had played any such role. Yet while attributing unfavorable reporting to competitors’ interests, Vorcaro was discussing with publicist Thiago Miranda, then associated with the Portal LeoDias news website, a strategy to target Itaú and its CEO, Milton Maluhy Filho. Messages disclosed by the press even record a proposal for a “coordinated campaign” involving several media outlets. Vorcaro has also been linked to efforts to build a network of media influence involving publications such as IstoÉ, Brazil Journal and PlatôBR, among others, aimed at shaping public opinion.
The exchanges with Metrópoles illustrate how that influence could extend directly into journalism. Vorcaro suggested removing references to Master’s possible collapse, sought changes to articles about Renato Gomes, the Brazilian Central Bank director responsible for reviewing the proposed sale of Master to state-controlled lender BRB, and took part in discussions involving statements by Roberto Campos Neto, the Central Bank’s former president, who had already joined Nubank by then. In August 2025, when Vorcaro asked for “an antidote to bad news,” Tahan suggested Campos Neto as “a strong card to play.” Vorcaro also proposed questions for an interview and changes to the article. The messages do not show that Campos Neto was aware of these editorial discussions, but they document the banker’s involvement in shaping coverage of a regulatory decision that was critical to his business interests.
These facts do not establish that Vorcaro orchestrated Metrópoles’ campaign against Itaú in 2026, particularly because many of the articles challenged by Factópoles were published after his arrest. It would be intellectually dishonest to turn suspicions into definitive conclusions. But the messages establish two important facts: Vorcaro discussed a coordinated media campaign against Itaú and exercised editorial influence over Metrópoles’ reporting. The connection between those episodes remains unproven, but it is no longer a question that can simply be brushed aside. Itaú remains a legitimate subject of journalistic scrutiny, but Metrópoles must explain how it safeguarded its editorial independence when an advertiser was weighing in on stories, headlines and publication decisions.
In July, I concluded that Factópoles was less about Itaú and Metrópoles than about the breakdown of trust between companies, the press and the public. The latest revelations make that concern more urgent. Economic interests have always existed behind media organizations. The problem begins when those interests cross the newsroom threshold and influence decisions that should belong exclusively to journalists. The central question now is whether the offensive against Itaú was conducted with editorial independence or whether, to some extent, it ended up serving the interests of a businessman who was already seeking to use the press against his competitors. This is not about shielding Itaú from investigation. It is about protecting journalism from those who would turn it into a weapon in a corporate battle.
Leave a Reply