In the editions of Friday, Sept. 9, I was surprised by an editor’s note in Folha published in Letters to the Editor as a response to a question by Jair Faustino Rodriguez from Guararema, So Paulo state. The letter demanded, and rightly so, a response from the newspaper to comments that I made in my Sunday column under the headline “The special artifice” about coverage of the disaster that devastated part of the coast along North America’s Gulf of Mexico.
“What does Folha have to say to its readers about the ‘artifice’ used to make us believe that the news about the destruction caused by Hurricane Katrina in the southern United States was sent from that country by reporter Pedro Dias Leite when, in truth, it was not, according to the criticism of ombudsman Marcelo Beraba on Sept. 4?”
In Sunday’s column, I described it as a serious mistake by the newspaper to use the reporter’s byline for two days on stories from international news agencies as if they were by the reporter sent to the region. “The error,” I wrote, “evidently, is not that of the reporter, who had no idea what was happening in Brazil, but of the newspaper which, with this artifice, wanted to make it look like it was receiving exclusive information from the region.”
The editor’s note did not admit that the newspaper had erred: “There was no error or omission. All of the stories the ombudsman commented about were credited as sent by Pedro Dias Leite and international agencies because they carried information collected by the Folha reporter and by the agencies.”
The source of news
I have three observations about this note.
1 – Rereading the stories from the first day shows that information published by the newspaper was from news agencies and other sources. The reporter had difficulties reaching the devastated region, both getting himself around and communicating with the newsroom, as was made clear in “Diary of chaos” published on Saturday, Sept. 3. Still, the newspaper published two immense stories under the byline. In one of them, there was a brief passage that could have been reported in Mobile: “… a spokesman for the city of Biloxi declared that the death count will be hundreds.” The next day, the story contained two paragraphs about Biloxi, Miss. And nothing more.
It was obvious to me that the newspaper wanted to give the impression that it was agile and that it was sending information from the area, when this was not possible for reasons that were not the fault of either the newspaper or the reporter.
The practice of using information from news agencies under the byline of someone who barely arrived at the destination is nothing new. But, as with corruption, the fact of being affected does not mean that it is justified. It needs to be eradicated. The newspaper would gain credibility.
2 – If the newspaper is correct, as it asserts in the editor’s note, and the information published was really by the reporter, it seems to me there is another question that was not answered: why then did he not send a personal account of the destruction and ruin that he witnessed, which he ended up doing well on Saturday and Sunday? What you expect from a special report is to be transported to the front, not declarations by authorities who are miles away. But I know that the reporter was not able to send his account in the first days.
Folha’s silence
3 – Finally, the most important. My surprise with the editor’s note came from the fact that the newspaper had three opportunities to inform the ombudsman that his criticism would not be addressed.
My first comment was made on Sept. 1, when the first story with the reporter’s byline came out. I wrote then in an internal critique: “The accounts in the special report by the newspaper (“Mayor says thousands could have died,” on page A13 and “500 buses will take 25,000 out of New Orleans,” on page A14) did not have one line about what the reporter should be seeing and experiencing in one of the cities most affected by the hurricane, Mobile. The two stories are roundups of information collected by the newspaper from international agencies and by telephone, and for this reason, it was not necessary to send a journalist to the front. It was a waste.”
I did not receive any answer from the newspaper. It is obvious that if the newspaper had informed me that I was wrong I would evaluate the arguments, and, even if I did not agree, would publish them as I have always done.
On Friday, Sept. 2, I once again criticized the newspaper’s procedures.
“Folha again today made the same mistake for which it was caught in yesterday’s edition: it is obvious that the reporter sent to the region devastated by Katrina did not manage to send information about what he witnessed. The stories with his byline on the front page and inside pages contain only information from international news agencies. The story inside (‘Rescue in New Orleans with gunfire and chaos,’ has only two paragraphs with generic references to the place where the correspondent was. The newspaper should put out a correction for attribution of the news consolidated in yesterday’s and today’s editions and other sources at its disposal and clearly recount the drama that its correspondent must be experiencing where he is located, surviving and contacting the newsroom in So Paulo. That is news. The newspaper’s efforts to send a correspondent to the region should be highlighted – and readers expect that from Folha – and should have solidarity with the reporter, who must be working in very precarious conditions similar to or worse than war. He is not at fault in this case about the improper use of his byline on information that is not his. The problem is with the newsroom and editors at the newspaper, and I suggest revision of this policy. There is no shame in saying that the reporter is having difficulties arriving at the ruined locations and transmitting information. The whole press is having the same difficulties.”
But once again the newspaper did not say so.
On that same Friday, I sought the interim managing editor, Vaguinaldo Marinheiro, and informed him that I would write about the topic on Sunday. I asked for the newspaper’s response. He told me that the newspaper would not comment about the criticism.
I don’t know to what I should attribute the silence of the newspaper on the three occasions in which it had the opportunity to speak out. Not doing it and preferring to address it in an editor’s note published nine days later raises doubts about the pertinence of the ombudsman’s criticism.
Translation by John Wright
