Doubts hanging in the air
By Bernardo Ajzenberg
August 17, 2003
One of the differences between journalism and literature is that the latter can be enriched by the use of diffuse, ambiguous phrases and imprecise elements that the mind of the reader carries to fruition in its own way, personal and non-transferable. For this reason, it is the reader who creates the fictional story more than the author.
Reporting in journalism requires the opposite: the delineated detail, exactness, and the most faithful reproduction possible of events. It seeks the maximum in concrete information for a minimum of generalized assertions. When you skate along with incompleteness, it impoverishes and informs badly.
Two topics during the week were victims of this approach. They ended up saying nothing and left a lot of questions hanging in the air.
In Wednesdays editions, Aug. 13, a story titled USP (So Paulo University) students support professors strike reported that the mobilization of teachers at that university gained the formal support of graduate and postgraduate students. It told what each of these groups intended to do (discussion of their own problems, leafleting, marches, etc.) and concluded by saying that they participated in a march on Friday.
Apparently, it was not a big deal. Nevertheless, I ask as I did it in my internal critique: what does format support mean? Was there a student assembly? Was it representative? How many students participated? Was the voting unanimous? What strike does it speak about? What are the complaints of the professors? How many of them have stopped work? What do administrators say? The story did not ask these basic questions.
On Friday, a story about the topic USP professors in Ribero Preto observe strike asserts that this participation was defined at an assembly and said that teachers at USP had decided to continue the strike on Monday morning. It was there, but without details. And it ended with a quotation: Cesar Minto, director of Adusp (teachers association), says the movement has grown. Period.
In another way, the same problems at the heart of it weakness in the assertions that were both confusing and precarious in their generality arose the story Evangelical churches help illegal immigrants. The story was tied to another on the front page of the daily news section on Friday about the arrest of Brazilians who were working illegally in Great Britain.
The story began like this: Brazilian evangelical churches are the main source of support for Brazilians who live overseas. As soon as they arrive in the United States or the main countries in western Europe, Brazilians receive all kinds of assistance from these churches, including food and housing.
Later on it said: The evangelicals give their support to anybody, independent of religion. Because of this, many convert to Pentecostalism when facing their first difficulties overseas.
In an internal critique, I complained: Is there some statistic, some consistent empirical observation able to give support to such ample and assertive generalizations? It could be all true, but the story, at least, did not prove it. Only two concrete examples were mentioned: Boston and Zurich.
Aside from the generic formulation or precarious information, this way of constructing stories builds in a bigger risk: that of falling for despite probable intention to the contrary a disguised press release of taxing assertions that serve the overall interests of one group or another involved in certain events.
Nothing is further from journalism that seeks to be impartial, precise and informative than the role of a simple messenger.
Sports imbroglio
As was expected, the story Santos uses player improperly and runs risk, on Thursday generated turmoil. In summary, the story asserted that in the six games in which the Santos soccer team played between July 8 and 29, Jerri participated under improper circumstances since his new contract with the club, signed July 8, only became public in the official bulletin of the Brazilian Soccer Federation on July 29.
According to the rules of the federation, an athlete can play only 72 hours after having his documentation approved and being published in the official bulletin.
That way, Santos opponents could, in a defined time period, seek justice for lost goals, which in theory could make the second-place team fall four positions in the standings for the national championship.
The edition even carried a small story about the position of Santos regarding the topic.
The same day, radio stations and Web sites quoted the soccer federation, Santos and at least one expert as asserting that there was no irregularity: the new contract was only a reformulation (due to a salary increase) of the previous one, which remained valid between July 8 and 29 because the first publication about Jerri in the official bulletin was April 4.
The same denial came out in various newspapers on Friday, including in Agora, a daily newspaper published by the Folha Group, which that afternoon had reproduced material from Folha. Agora cited in quotation marks an unequivocal denial by the director of registrations and transfers in the soccer federation, Luiz Gustavo Vieira.
Folha, however, maintained its position and announced that the Ponte Preta team complained to judicial authorities and that the soccer federation did not rule on the matter, opting to wait until the Sports Justice Superior Court analyzed the complaints that it received (yesterday it repeated the same, using the list of complaints by the Fluminense and Gois teams. It noted a statement by Santos in which the club, while maintaining the same position, speaks of a new contract, not only as an additive to the previous as it had the first day).
On Friday, I received more than 30 messages from readers most of them by Santos fans who disagreed, demanding a retraction. In an internal critique, I committed on a contradiction between the revealing of the soccer federations versions (pro-Santos) in the media and assertion that the entity did not express.
Asked about it, the sports editor, Melchiades Filho, asserted that the conviction of Folha was based on a judgment of reporters and the editor, besides information from the registration department at the soccer federation.
It reiterated that through Friday night there was no official statement by the soccer federation (the president, secretary-general, technical director or registration director), that the director Vieira denied the statements Folha had attributed to him in the media and that the press spokesman for the organization, Rodrigo Paiva, insisted on not having made the statements.
The newspaper bet heavily on its assumptions, without quoting any expert or source and ignoring the other side of Santos by taking the position that there was an irregularity. Whether right or wrong in its judgment, only the sports court can say. Journalistically, however, I think that the controversial case deserved less-imposing treatment.
The newspaper would do better if it also reported different positions by experts in sports law, divergent arguments, regulations, data and more, finally, so the reader Santos fans or not can form an opinion.
Folha deserves praise for seeking, such as in this case, to exercise critical journalism. It is something it should not and cannot give up. Giving pithy shots starting with a controversial side (registering the other side as if were only to get it on the record), however, put it in the place of judicial authorities which is not its function.
