The story “Brazilian leader’s tippling becomes national concern” by journalist Larry Rohter of “The New York Times” in Brazil, was the topic of the week. Available on Saturday, May 8 on the American newspaper’s website and published on Sunday, it generated immediate reaction by the Brazilian government, which considered it “libelous, defamation and prejudiced.” On Tuesday, Rohter had his Brazilian visa cancelled. The discussion, which at the beginning of the week centered on the journalistic aspects of the story, turned into a huge debate about freedom of expression. On Friday, the journalist sent a letter to the government which was understood to be a retraction and the case appeared to be closed.
Before analyzing the behavior of Folha in this episode, I will give my opinion about some aspects.
1) Is the topic pertinent? Should a journalist be concerned about the habits or interested in the private life of a public man? I believe so. As lawyer Tas Gasparian wrote Thursday in Folha, “as a public man, his sphere of privacy is reduced, since his actions are important to the nation.”
2) Was the story in “The New York Times” done well? No. From a journalistic viewpoint, it was badly done. It is a collection of opinions (what is derisively called rewriting in journalistic slang), it had no new information, the sources cited are not correctly identified for readers to judge the weight of their opinions or information, and there is nothing that gives consistency to the two most relevant assertions in the story: that a drinking habit could be affecting the performance of President Luiz Incio Lula da Silva in his job and that this habit has become a national concern.
3) Was the reaction by the Brazilian government about the publication of the story correct? I believe it was not. From the start, its response was disproportional and helped inflate a matter that had no repercussion in the international press and that, domestically, had been repudiated even by the opposition. The decision to revoke Rohter’s visa was a mistake, not from the standpoint of the government’s image, because this is a problem for the government, rather from the standpoint of democracy and its freedoms. The president (not the nation) felt his honor was offended and should seek damages through the judicial system.
4) Did the reaction by the press against the expulsion reflect corporate policy? I don’t believe so. It is a mistake to consider freedom of expression and the press to be privileges of journalists. They are democratic victories, in our case won with many difficulties, which at least guarantees oversight of a government that grows increasingly stronger without controls.
What about Folha?
Folha, as is customary, had good and bad moments in coverage.
1) The newspaper was surprisingly agile at giving emphasis to “The New York Times” story and the first reactions by the government already on Sunday. I’ll explain my surprise: Folha, on various occasions, has not done a good job covering events that occur on the weekend. Sometimes they only make it into the newspaper on Tuesday.
2) In the edition of Sunday, May 9, it was the only newspaper that published a translation of the entire story. Its readers, therefore, were in the best position to judge the quality of the story and take a position.
3) The news in all the major newspapers was similar, but with a few differences.
4) In the edition of Wednesday, May 12, the newspaper did not make a lead story out of the main topic from the previous evening, the expulsion of “The New York Times” correspondent. It preferred to lead with the promise by Finance Minister Antonio Palocci to study the possibility of some day making a change in income tax rates.
5) The big edition of Folha was on Thursday, May 13, because of the opinion columns it published. While almost all were against the government’s decision, it had the merit to reserve its most coveted space in the op-ed section on page A3 for defense of the measure by presidential spokesman Andr Singer.
6) If it was agile at the start of the matter on Sunday, Folha was slow in expressing for its readers what it thought of the story in “The New York Times” and its national repercussions. Its competitor, “O Estado de So Paulo”, on Tuesday already published its first editorial about the topic. “The presidential palace reacted ‘with its gut,’” a criticism of the reaction by the government before the expulsion decision. The journalist’s credentials were revoked on Tuesday and only on Thursday did Folha publish an editorial titled “A mistake.”
7) Big cases such as this one provoke the participation of readers, and it is important that the newspaper make space for their comments. Folha published, from Monday through Friday, 21 letters from readers, with 11 of them against the decision by the Lula government and 10 in favor, a very balanced result and very different from the two other big newspaper competitors. O Estado published 34 letters through the week, with 27 of them against the government, five in favor and two that could be classified as neutral. The Rio daily “O Globo” published 29 letters during the same period, with 18 against the government, eight favorable, one official response and two neutral. Folha should look into the possibility, in controversial cases such as this one, of giving more space to these opinions by readers.
Interview: “”The New York Times” remains very arrogant”
Yesterday I received a message from the ombudsman at “The New York Times”, public editor Daniel Okrent, about the Rohter case. “I believe that the story was TECHNICALLY correct in the sense that the accusations were attributed to identified sources, but I insist on the term “technically.” I would like it if he had offered more context about the motivations of the people he talked to, and I was very bothered by the photograph, which in that context seems to be presented as proof. In the same way, it would have been correct to show a photograph of Lula NOT drinking, but this would not have produced the same effect. I should add that the decision to cancel Rohter’s visa is not justified if we believe in the freedom of the press – this suggests that writing critically can result in punishment.”
Okrent, 56, has been the public editor at “The New York Times” since December 2003. The position was created after discovering that one of the reporters at the newspaper, Jayson Blair, invented various stories.
I interviewed Okrent on May 3, during the conference of ONO (the organization of ombudsmen in the media) in St. Petersburg, Florida, before, however, the story about Lula. In this interview, he spoke about his difficulties as ombudsman, about the crisis in journalism and about the arrogance of the New York newspaper.
*
Ombudsman: How is the work as public editor?
Daniel Okrent: Very tense, in the middle of many disputes between irritated readers and defensive journalists.
Ombudsman: How do you see the crisis in journalism?
Okrent: In the United States there was a progressive crisis for two main reasons: for the loss of confidence by the public and the political situation in the country. And there is another serious problem. The role of newspapers is not clear at this moment. We are from an age in which newspapers had a dominant role. Now, with cable TV, the Internet and other media, there is fragmentation. Before, sources talked to a few news organizations, and that was sufficient. That is no longer the case. The circulation at newspapers has fallen, but the number of people seeking information in other ways has grown.
Ombudsman: Do you believe that the ombudsman can improve a newspaper?
Okrent: He can help the newspaper to be more open with readers. It’s not that he improves it, but he helps the newspaper and readers understand each other and avoid horrible mistakes.
Ombudsman: Was the big problem at “The New York Times” and the Blair crisis and its consequences the result of arrogance?
Okrent: Yes, it was arrogance. And the newspaper remains very arrogant. When they tell you for a long time that you are the best and most important, you start to believe it. And, if you allow me to say so, that is it.
Translation by John Wright
