Look at the images above. They are from the front page of Folha and the covers of the weekly news magazines Veja and Isto Dinheiro about the recent inauguration of Luiz Incio Lula da Silva as president.
Its easy to notice that the newspapers photograph Lula and his wife, Marisa, under a shower of confetti falling on the presidential Rolls Royce was reproduced by the magazines after touching up the original.
In Veja, the first ladys face got some confetti, while the ones that covered the presidents face disappeared. In Isto Dinheiro, the correction was smaller: All that disappeared was a little yellow piece of paper that was rising out of Lulas hand.
I spoke with Carlos Neri, the executive editor for art at Veja. He said that the placement of confetti on Marisa was done to cover up inconsistencies in the image of her face when they enlarged the photograph to adapt it to the specific conditions to print the magazine. As for Lula, the idea was to clean his face, with the goal of enhancing his image and bringing him closer than in the original.
Luiz Fernando S, editor-in-chief at Isto Dinheiro, asserted that in superimposing Lulas hand on the headline of the cover, the paper had become a distraction that could have given readers the idea that there was some mistake and that it was not part of the true image. That prompted the decision to remove it.
These situations impose a crucial question for journalism at a time when technology allows a digitalized image to be changed beyond recognition: What is the acceptable limit for any change in a photo whose function is to profile a real moment and, as here, a historic one?
For Eder Chiodetto, photo editor at Folha, nothing justifies altering the elements that comprise a photojournalistic image by electronic manipulation or any other means. To capture an image in the news, the news photographer has a commitment to be frank with readers. Thats what distinguishes photojournalism from advertising, for example.
In his opinion, the veracity of information is our biggest asset. Altering the contents of the image, as little as it may be, directly affects the credibility of the photojournalist and the news organization.
There was no manipulation, said Neri of Veja. The concept of the photograph or the news was not altered. We did not invent a non-existent situation. We only touched up the image to improve it.
We avoid this to the maximum, said Luiz Fernando S, but at times, its necessary for the reader to understand. There was no alteration. It was an esthetic choice.
Certainly we are not speaking about grotesque falsifications or criminal inferences.
A definition from an Italian student of communications, Furio Colombo, however, helped reflect on the risk in this type of precedent: The photojournalist is someone who, endowed with a set of instincts which pertain to technique as much as art, identifies the single moment that contains by itself all the expressive, emotive or tragic power in the event that we dont see.
Do we have the right to interfere with recording this singular moment?
My understanding is that we dont despite the possible distractions, holes or even imperfections of the original. Journalism exists to show reality, not embellish it.
The clone again
The science editor, Marcelo Leite, sent a reply to my column Clone on the stage, published last Sunday, about how Folha covered the announcement by the company Clonaid of the birth of the supposedly first cloned baby. His arguments follow:
1) The first mistake (by the ombudsman) was to try to base his argument on an editorial to criticize the news published a week before, as if the former constituted an admonishment of the authors of the latter.
At Folha, there is a separation between the opinions of the newspaper and news stories that it publishes, as there should be, not requiring what must be covered nor being influenced by it. Besides this, as the editorial did not present the argument that it was not in the news, it would not be unreasonable to assume that the stories and the commentaries published in the heat of the moment could have contributed to the thinking in the newspapers opinion pieces.
2) The ombudsman accused the science section of slipping into sensationalism and succumbing to the logic of the news as a spectacle despite being aware of the insufficiencies summarized days before in the editorial. It said that the newspaper did not give up its healthy skepticism but still gave disproportional attention to Clonaids announcement.
Since I dont know how to ask the reason for this apparent discrepancy, it must have been concluded in advance that the editors are ignorant or schizophrenic. Because I dont include myself in either of these categories, I see it as necessary to clarify why we didnt succumb to the logic of news as a spectacle: the simple reason that this logic is not to make us think and all of us in the news followed in the opposite direction.
Without opinions that have preemptive value, thats how its done in an editorial, but with information, context and analysis.
3) The ombudsman could have pointed out this difference in the news published by Folha (wide repercussions among scientists, bioethicists and religious figures, an analysis by better-known Brazilian philosophers, phrases and arguments by thinkers such as Jrgen Habermas and Francis Fukuyama), edited exactly to show the cultural and extrascientific reach of a possible human clone, but preferred to give itself to a smaller accounting of spaces and highlights.
Its obvious that the editors of Folhas Brazilian competitors followed the easiest path, that of being based on only outside authority (editorials, in this case) and decide what seems to be most prudent: reporting embarrassment and who is apologizing about what could reveal itself as the most important news of 2003, if confirmed, let me repeat to be make it clear, the birth of the first human clone.
4) Those guilty of sensationalism were the Raelians at Clonaid. Folha reported and criticized with the proper prominence this unprecedented manifestation of biotechnological hybris.
*
The definition of the space to be reserved for a certain topic in a newspaper is one of the essential components of editorial choices. It reflects the value attributed to the news in question. It is not the object of smaller accounting.
I continue to believe, despite the thoughts of the editor, that Folha was excessive in the space dedicated to the news and that, in this way, the newspaper ended up feeding the publicity game built into Clonaids announcement.
