Newspapers made a mistake in Thursday’s editions by not giving more visibility on the front page to testimony in which Cludio Mouro confirmed, during the congressional investigation into the postal service scandal, the use of slush funds and resources of (publicist) Marcos Valrio to finance the electoral campaign of the Brazilian Social Democracy Party (PSDB) in the state of Minas Gerais in 1998.
Mouro was treasurer in the campaign of Eduardo Azeredo, the current president of the PSDB and senator from Minas Gerais. And his statements are relevant for four reasons.
First, because they were initially revealed in a congressional investigation. Second, because they carried news, such as information about payments for the services of publicist Duda Mendona with money from a campaign slush fund. Third, because they repeated the same tactics and arguments (Mouro assumed sole responsibility for the slush fund) of the former treasurer of the Workers Party (PT), Delbio Soares.
Finally, because a political dispute is impeding the results of investigations that can’t be ignored. The PT, its allies and opposition parties, mainly the Brazilian Democratic Movement Party (PMDB) and/or Liberal Front Party (PFL), are dealing with the crisis from the same electoral perspective. While newspapers don’t have to lose focus of irregularities and crimes committed in this administration and Congress, it is obvious that they can’t ignore and not give the same effort to irregularities and crimes committed by other administrations, other parties and in other times.
In my opinion, Folha’s headline was defensible from a journalistic standpoint because the newspaper exclusively managed to anticipate the intent of the defense that the former PT treasurer, threatened with expulsion, points to party leaders.
The attention given to the decision by the Supreme Court, which rejected the restraining order sought by PT Congressman Jos Dirceu to stop the process of his removal, is also correct. It was the news of the day that normally would have been the newspaper’s headline, as it was in the Rio daily “O Globo” and “O Estado de So Paulo.”
But these headlines don’t justify that reporting about Mouro’s testimony was badly done.
Folha does not agree with the ombudsman’s opinion and believes that there was no mistake in this case. According to Suzana Singer, managing editor for editing, “the testimony of the former treasurer only reaffirmed what the congressional investigation had said earlier.” She recalled that Folha has reported on the matter on four occasions: “Actions of former treasurer indicate slush fund in PSDB campaign” (Aug. 2), “Azeredo admits slush fund, but blames treasurer” (Aug. 3), “Valrio says Azeredo knew about loan” (Aug. 11) and “Former treasurer admits PSDB had slush fund in 1998″ (Aug. 27). “The news of the day was, without a doubt, the defense of Delbio Soares (reported exclusively by Folha) and rejection by the Supreme Court of Jos Dirceu’s request.”
Various readers identified the newspaper’s behavior as sympathy for the PSDB. Singer responded: “This same day the newspaper published a photograph on the front page of (So Paulo) Mayor Jos Serra being hit by droplets of an egg, thrown by a resident of Jardim Pantanal.”
The newspaper would have been mistaken to omit the attack on the mayor.
As for the main argument to explain the treatment given to the news about a PSDB slush fund – information that has already come out – it is worth remembering that, on various occasions through the political crisis that has been brewing since May, Folha considered it useful to point out headlines, facts, accusations and statements already published.
The newspaper could not get into the political game of the parties. It should seek the blemishes against all of them with equal visibility and critical rigor. There is a time when it is not enough to seek impartiality.
Folha recognizes the mistakes in information that it makes with relative ease. But it has difficulties admitting the mistakes in editing that put at risk its impartiality.
About journalism
Newspapers reported on Saturday, Oct. 15 the murder of journalism student Rafael Azevedo Fortes Alves, 21, on the campus of So Paulo University by a classmate in the School of Communications and Arts (ECA). Rafael was killed by a stab to the chest by Fbio Le Senechal Nanni, also 21. It was horrible, one of those dramas that indelibly mark a family, friends and colleagues. It is one of those cases that no journalist likes to do. But it is a crime and should be treated as such, with all the care that we don’t always take with the drama of others.
The university’s “Campus Daily” chose not to cover the event. Jolted by the circumstances of Rafael’s death, students who put together the paper preferred to publish only a notice (“ECA in mourning over the death of journalism student”) and an editorial (“About children and wolves”) in which it made strong criticism of the work of the press.
I will reproduce the strongest passages from the editorial to show that it is a good case for reflection by us and these young journalists who are still inexperienced.
“On that day, dozens of journalists from big news organizations approached and called on cell phones, like avid wolves for photographs and exclusive eyewitness accounts that were sought when Fbio was in jail and to use the lowest means possible to obtain them.
“We observe the work of these journalists, and we can verify what interested them was seeking strong headlines and stories about this dramatic story which did not justify bothering students to give interviews or exploit the images of suffering. Many organizations, mainly on the Internet, published tendentious, sensationalistic, Manichean and badly done stories.
“We believe that publication of these items only had one objective: to feed a press avid for blood. As for sourcing and ethics, ‘JC’ would not release the material he found out. We decided also to not publish stories about the case, since the news was exploited exhaustively by the media. The most respectful way to deal with what happened, given the pain of others and ourselves, was to publish this editorial, a symbol of grief.”
I understand and respect the pain of these students. But I am convinced that they made the wrong choice to abdicate from journalism. I won’t go into the merit of evaluating who reporters hurt by covering the case. But the best answer to the sensationalism would be a well-done story like the one by “JC,” coverage of what we would like to have read in the press.
FROM READERS
Tropical omission
I received from reader Jordo Pereira of Curitiba a message in which he questions the Oct. 14 edition of style magazine “Moda” in Folha which circulated in So Paulo and Rio under the headline “Tropical elegance.” “In this edition we are presenting in 24 inside pages and again on the cover four illustrations and 202 photos involving 222 models (an average of more than eight pictures per page) and five photos of scenes/objects. Most of all, none of the 202 photos has a model of African descent.
“I don’t know what is the reasoning or editorial line, but it looks as if we are not in Brazil.”
I did not verify whether these numbers are correct, but leafing through the magazine shows that the observation is correct. As the reader summarized, it looks as if we are not in Brazil.
The editor of the magazine, Alcino Leide Neto, did not want to comment about the message. He said only that he agreed with the reader.
Let’s wait to see the next edition of this magazine.
Translation by John Wright
