Chico and Cuba
By Bernardo Ajzenberg
May 11, 2003
Dont the other signatories also want to sign a manifesto in favor of gangster Fernandinho Beira-Mar? Isnt the level of criminality similar between him and Fidel?
This complaint was sent by a reader regarding the story published Tuesday reporting that prominent singer and songwriter Chico Buarque had signed a letter in support of Cuba that was read May 1 in Havana. The manifesto repudiated the United States and omitted anything about the recent wave of repression against Cuban dissidents, including prison terms and executions. It came at a sober moment during which cultural celebrities are divided over the situation.
The message showed how the image of an artist could be damaged by political positions. But it also showed another phenomenon: Readers believe the newspaper, accepting as fact what it publishes. It was here that things got a bit complicated since Chico simply did not sign any manifesto in support of Cuba. A box to the side shows how the newspaper handled the situation.
On the first day (Tuesday) it put a teaser on the front page (Chico Buarque signs pro-Cuba manifesto) and a six-column headline on an inside page (Chico Buarque signs letter in favor of Cuba).
Before the denial by a representative of the artist, a small text came out Wednesday at the bottom of a page (Chico Buarque did not defend Cuba, adviser says). Without mentioning that Folha itself had given a great deal of play with prominent headlines about the information, it said that international news agencies reported the day before yesterday that Chico had signed the letter.
Finally, on Friday, a letter from the same adviser in Letters to the Editor and a correction told the outcome of the episode up to now.
The editor of foreign news, Srgio Malbergier, explained that Folha used information from international news agencies and verified on a pro-Cuba website that Chicos name was on the list of supporters. It tried to contact him for two days. On the first, it did not succeed. So we reported that agencies and the website said that he had signed the list and that we did not manage to contact him, the journalist asserted.
On the second day, the adviser denied that Chico was a signatory to the document as was published but said that the musician could not make a statement because he was concentrating on writing a book. Here is the invitation for Chico to comment about the topic more clearly, Malbergier concluded.
I think that the newspaper made at least three mistakes in this episode.
The first was to give such prominent play, headlines and taxing stories to a serious topic that was unconfirmed. The story cited an agency, but only to report that it said Chico had been one of the last to sign the manifesto. The newspaper also said that it did not manage to speak with the musician, but it did not explain whether it tried to confirm the information or get comment on it. Cautious headlines and stories attenuated the damage.
The second mistake was nearly hidden the next day (Wednesday), publishing the denial by the adviser only at the bottom of the page and attributing all the responsibility to international agencies, as if the newspaper had not taken a chance with the information.
Its clear that it published a letter with a denial and a correction Friday, which was a positive step. But it is also too little insufficient and disproportional to the noise made by the previous headline and this was the newspapers third mistake in this matter. A story intending to clarify the matter was missing, at least up until the time this column was finished.
I began with a message from a reader and ended with another, whose contents only the correction published reflect the gravity of the matter:
The aggression that Folha committed against singer Chico Buarque is simply revolting … a serious accusation at a time of executions … Folha shot at its own stylebook, seriously sullied Chicos image and ignored any basic principle of journalism, ethics and good sense … What happened was inexcusable, unforgivable and unbelievable. In summary, it is sickening, made me sick to the stomach. It ruined my morning, my sense of humor, my day.
I dont know if Chico Buarque will or will not make a statement about Castros repression nor what he thinks about it.
But this e-mail, despite some exaggeration in the adjectives gives food for thought about the responsibility that the newspaper has toward its readers and toward figures in the news.
Letdown
I frequently receive letters from fans of the Santos soccer team, who believe that the newspaper gives less space to the team than it deserves.
I dont always agree with them, especially in recent months, but Thursdays edition did not leave much room for doubt: Folha was the only one among the So Paulo newspaper to not publish on the front page of the sports section a photo of the teams victory against the National soccer team of Uruguay in the competition for a spot in the quarter finals of next years Liberators Cup. In particular, goalie Fbio Costa spectacularly defined the game in a memorable moment by successfully defending against three penalty kicks.
The newspaper had a photographer at the game and received the images, but it did not publish them.
According to what I gathered, there were logistical difficulties in the newsroom and limitations imposed by deadlines to print the newspaper. The game ended only minutes after midnight. The story about the game came out with a headline on the front page of the section (the headline was Fbio Costa guarantees dream of Santos in Liberators), but it was missing pictures.
The sports editor, Melchiades Filho, recognized the technical limitations that were anticipated and put in effect a schedule that allowed the section to be completed late.
The front page included a teaser with the headline (without a story) and kept the picture of a protest by doctors in Baghdad, with a journalistic value to Brazilians clearly less than that of the Santos victory.
Remember that the importance of photographs in journalism, especially in sports, is stating the obvious. In this case, however, it was not journalism that prevailed.
