Congressional investigations into corruption in the administration of President Luiz Incio Lula da Silva and Congress seem to be lost and far from their objective. The lack of direction contaminated the press, which feeds mainly off the results of congressional investigations.
A while back, news circulated around the parallel political and economic scandals. Little relevant information has come out in recent weeks in congressional testimony and investigations, and the same could be said about journalistic efforts.
Friday’s edition was an exception after various days of attention on politics. But the news came from the federal police and not the Chamber of Deputies. Newspapers reported that the federal police were certain they had found proof there were no bank loans to the businesses owned by advertising executive Marcos Valrio. And “O Estado de So Paulo” put out a report by the same police indicting 16 people, among them 12 members of Congress, for money laundering, tax evasion and formation of a criminal organization.
Now that the presidency of the Chamber of Deputies has been decided, it is possible and desirable that the newspaper return once again to investigations of corruption and give them priority so the case is not paralyzed by the agreements. The slowness and lack of direction in information verified takes the focus off corruption and facilitates manipulation of the facts by the government, its allies and opposition.
Problems with coverage
Here are some comments about coverage in recent weeks:
1 – The press has experienced many difficulties investigating accusations on its own. I believe this is due to two main factors.
First, it is necessary to take into account the intrinsic complications and investigations into corruption. These are the most difficult things to verify in a story. It is the type of investigation that requires breaking bank, fiscal and telephone secrecy laws, resources exclusive to the Justice Ministry and congressional investigators. The press moves when it finds sources willing to talk or provide documents.
The other problem is a lack of specialized personnel. Newsrooms have been reduced and don’t have the strength to distribute fewer experienced people in all the areas opened up by the recording that caught a postal service official red-handed (in May) and the accusations by Roberto Jefferson (in June). Journalists are working harder than ever, but they are unable to keep up with the number of cases and personalities that are multiplying.
2 – Consequences of these problems are lack of continuity in the coverage of various cases and the premature publication of stories that are incomplete, badly verified or unimportant.
A recent case that I pointed out in my internal critique was the headline on Sunday, Sept. 18: “Federal police seek link between Collor’s money changer and PT” (referring to a possible connection between a money launderer for ex-President Fernando Collor de Mello, who resigned amid a corruption scandal in 1992, and Lula’s Workers Party, known as PT). I wrote then: “I thought Folha’s headline on Sunday was premature and rash. It was premature because it was clear that it is not just a hypothesis carried by the federal police in an inchoate and inconclusive investigation. The newspaper used the conditional (“would be,” “would have”) and terms such as “seeks,” “investigates possible connection,” “could,” etc. It is rash to associate Collor and the PT when the federal police are still working to prove the link between (money changer) Turner and Marcos Valrio.”
It is even possible that there is a link, but the story did not prove one, and in the following days, nothing else came out that showed consistency in this suspicion.
Badly told stories
3 – Because the investigations did not advance, there is an excess of political coverage. And political coverage, in this case, is customarily synonymous with declarations rather than facts. Even in this area, the story advanced with a great deal of difficulty.
An example of political verification that did not advance is the true story of the exclusion of Sen. Eduardo Azeredo (Minas Gerais), president of the centrist Brazilian Social Democracy Party (PSDB) and also a beneficiary of Marcos Valrio’s scheme in 1998, from the list of those who would be removed from office resulting from the congressional investigation and bribery scandal. It is a type of journalistic investigation that does not depend on police, prosecutors or congressional investigation, rather on sources and willingness.
The list of officials to be removed was announced Sept. 1. Already on Sept. 3, Folha published an editorial, “And Azeredo?” in which it pointed out the absence of the senator’s name from the list. On Sept. 4, a column carried the note “Not with me” which said: “Ideli Salvatti, called at a Friday meeting of the PT to explain why Eduardo Azeredo of the PSDB was left off the list of those to be removed in the postal service investigation, began by repeating only: ‘Ask Mercadante’” (referring to PT Senate leader Aloizio Mercadante).
In other words, the exclusion would be in PT’s interest. In making the announcement on Sept. 19, which reiterated the accusations made against Congressmen Jos Dirceu (of the PT from So Paulo) and Sandro Mabel (of the conservative Liberal Front Party, or PFL, from So Paulo) sent to the Ethics Council in Congress, Roberto Jefferson was explicit and condemned the agreement among the PT, PSDB and PFL to remove only him and Congressman Jos Dirceu, thus saving PT congressional members, Congressman Roberto Brant (PFL from Minas Gerais) and Sen. Eduardo Azeredo.
PT members did not complain about the omission, with rare exceptions, such as in the cases of the denial by Jos Dirceu to congressional investigators on Sept. 8 and in an op-ed piece by Paul Singer published in Folha, “The roots of hate,” on Sept. 23. It would be normal to take advantage of the event to protest, which did not occur.
The newspaper returned to demand explanations for the exclusion of the senator in two editorials, on Sept. 12 (“Missing a lot”) and Sept. 29 (“Semantic deviations”). And the newsroom did some stories about Azeredo’s involvement (“Azeredo must be judged by common justice” on Sept. 17, “Valrio called 53 times to Azeredo’s cellphone” on Sept. 24, and “Prosecutors see connection between Cemig [cement company] and PSDB slush fund” on Sept. 25), but the story about the agreement among the PT, PFL and PSDB was never investigated. And, if it was, it did not end up being published.
With this, various other political episodes in the crisis ended up being forgotten by the press.
Focus of investigations
4 – Another noteworthy aspect of the coverage during this period is the disorganization and disintegration in editing. I already mentioned this point in other commentary, but it keeps coming back. Editors already have difficulties to organize and prioritize the news that arrives from so many different sources.
I understand that it is not a simple task to consolidate the mass of information collected daily in the coverage of three congressional investigations, federal police, federal and state prosecutors, Justice Ministry and officials in Congress and the executive branch. But that is the work of newspapers. And unimportant news is frequently found at the top of pages, stories that do not inform whether or not there is a crime in the accusations, repetition of information, lack of context and memory.
There is no lack of space. The newspapers have dedicated pages and pages every day to news about the crises. The problem is with editing. Quality ended up being substituted by quantity. Readers don’t manage to follow all the cases; personalities arise out of nowhere and then disappear with no explanation. There is weariness over the excess of information released without journalistic treatment.
I believe that the crisis now enters a new phase. Without the distractions of the campaign for president of Congress and without the festival of complaints that have marked recent weeks, it is possible for the focus to return to investigations.
Newspapers should do an evaluation of work completed up to now and direct their energies to advance the work of the congressional investigations and clarify the facts. Here are the best contributions that can be made at this moment: quality of information, balance in coverage and in the editions and pluralism. Readers will be grateful.
Translation by John Wright
