The collapse at the Pinheiros subway station brought a return, on the eve of the city’s anniversary, to the debate about the future of So Paulo
Only two weeks after disaster struck in the Pinheiro subway station under construction, the story already encountered difficulties getting onto Folha’s front page. The initial coverage was intense, with some mistakes that did not compromise it, but pretty soon the newsroom routine pushed the matter to sporadic coverage. The tragedy returns to the front pages when there is news, such as on Friday, when yet another body was found, that of office boy Ccero Augustinho da Silva. Until then, the newspapers will deal with new topics, even though the Pinheiros accident merits uninterrupted journalistic investigation.
Reader Jair Ghion suggested last week that there should be a comparison of Folha’s coverage of the two big accidents in So Paulo: this one at the subway station, in which seven bodies have been found so far, and the landslide over 32 shanties in the Nova Repblica slum in the Morumbi neighborhood in 1989, when 14 people, including 12 children, died.
Ghion’s suggestion to compare Folha’s treatment of the two cases originated with the impression that on the previous occasion the newspaper blamed the administration of then-Mayor Luiza Erundina of the left-leaning Workers Party (PT), but now does not do the same toward the state administrations of Gov. Jos Serra and his predecessor, Geraldo Alckmin, both members of the centrist Brazilian Social Democracy Party (PSDB). He believes it is “fundamental to analyze what might change opinions about Folha’s partiality.” I considered the suggestion pertinent with the understanding that this is a frequent complaint by readers, not only now in the subway incident.
Atmosphere of impunity
I reread the 1989 editions, with the help of Folha’s news archives. On Oct. 24, three weeks before the first round of the first presidential election since 1961, an 80-meter-high hillside gave way and buried 32 of 120 shanties in the slum. The landslide was caused by excavation that was preparing the land for construction of a high-price condominium. The work had been halted by the municipal administration, and the owners had already been fined several times.
Rereading the coverage shows that, apart from the impression that stayed in Ghion’s memory, Folha did not blame the municipal administration. The editorials at the time were as cautious about assigning blame as they are now. There were no charges in the newspaper against City Hall. In both situations, the newspaper demanded impartial, rigorous investigations.
There was, however, electoral use. Various candidates for the presidency exploited the landslide to attack, during their required free time on TV, the candidacy of Luiz Incio Lula da Silva of the PT (who was elected president in 2002 and was reelected last year). But these attacks were only mentioned in the newspaper, as was defense of the mayor.
Folha’s first editorial was published the third day (“Tragedy and omission”) and did not cite Erundina. It mentioned “an environment of impunity and mismanagement that permeates all of Brazilian society,” at the time the recently departed military dictatorship.
This time, the first editorial (“Subway disaster”), also on the third day, had preserving the image of the subway as a means of safe collective transportation as its main concern.
The second editorial (“Emergency plan” on Jan. 18) asked for an investigation, also under the hypothesis of negligence in the execution and oversight of the project.
Two cities
What surprised me in my rereading was the fact that the Nova Repblica story had little visibility in 1989 on Folha’s pages. There was no comparison with the extensive coverage now.
Even though it happened in Morumbi, one of the most elite neighborhoods in So Paulo, and buried 12 children and two adults, the tragedy was never the lead story in the newspaper.
The collapse of the hillside occurred in the afternoon (the same as the subway station accident), and the next day, the news occupied the bottom of the front page with a photograph and a dry headline, “Landslide kills 15 in SP (there were 14).” The main story that day was the electoral campaign, with three photos: “Collor security hits PT candidate in Rio” (referring to the eventual winner of that year’s election, Fernando Collor de Mello).
The next day, the newspaper put a photo at the top of the front page with the headline “Firefighters find 8 bodies of children buried in slum,” but the main story was about the election: “Fiesp predicts Lula and Collor in runoff.” The local news section highlighted the disaster, in those first days, on its first page, but the coverage never exceeded three pages. Soon the topic disappeared from the first page.
The subway accident was the lead story for seven days in a row. That ended on Saturday, Jan. 20 when the Mercosul summit was held in Rio, returned on Sunday but lost visibility on the front page during this past week.
Internally, there was also no comparison between coverage of the two events. The newspaper dedicated at least three pages the first week to the subway tragedy, and up to the equivalent of seven and a half pages on Monday, Jan. 15.
I believe that the main point to explain the differences in treatment was not the political question, but rather the way Folha evaluated the two tragedies. The subway accident had the deserved emphasis in the newspaper. The slum tragedy in Morumbi never got the space it deserved.
More So Paulo
In 1993, almost four years after the Nova Repblica tragedy, six people were convicted for recklessness, negligence and omission: the owner of the land and a construction foreman responsible for the excavation that provoked the landslide, two inspectors and two municipal engineers.
City Hall was absolved. According to the information in the news archives, in 1996, seven years after the accident, only 25 groups of residents, for a total of 76, had been compensated. The six who were convicted have appealed their sentences and never served their terms.
In the case of the subway tragedy, the investigations have just begun. The newspaper’s tendency is to turn its attention to other events that arise.
The impression that I had last week, and which I registered in my internal critique on Jan. 23, is that the newspaper has slowed its rhythm of investigative work and now only follows the news produced by authorities.
More than the deaths, the material damage and insecurity, the collapse at the Pinheiros station brought back, on the eve of So Paulo’s anniversary, the debate about its future. It is an excellent opportunity for the newspaper to do what is necessary and get closer to readers and So Paulo residents through journalistic investigation (about the causes and responsibility) and provide space for ideas. So Paulo needs to be at the center of Folha’s discussions.
Phrase
“Folha is lacking in talk about So Paulo. Discuss the city. Is it a national newspaper? Fine, I believe it is not in this case, because the newspaper always gives priority to events in So Paulo, focuses the news on its main reading public. The formula? I don’t know. I only know that no newspaper discusses So Paulo as the city needs. And deserves.”
RICARDO BALLARINE
So Paulo
Translation by John Wright
