Readers criticized the newspaper’s decision to circulate without several of its weekly supplements in the editions during the holidays between Christmas and New Years
There weren’t many readers who complained, but those who did so very strongly opposed Folha’s decision to take advantage of the Christmas and New Year’s holidays to circulate without various supplements.
Between Saturday, Dec. 23 and Monday, Jan. 1, the newspaper did not publish two editions of its magazine and Mais! (both come out on Sunday), Folhateen (Mondays), Folhinha (Saturdays), and one edition of Equilbrio (Thursday, Dec. 28).
Doralice Arajo, a teacher from Curitiba, was the first to protest, on Christmas, and over the following days sent five messages complaining about what she considered “disrespect” and the newspaper’s “lack of commitment” to its readers. “Can you imagine the fuss in a public hospital if you put a sign on the door that obstetrical services won’t be offered on Dec. 24? Can you imagine that? That is the feeling a reader experiences when opening an edition and seeing an unconvincing explanation,” she wrote.
Cost reductions
This is not the first time the newspaper saved money with its supplements. Managing Editor Suzana Singer justifies Folha’s procedures this way: “The newspaper took advantage during this period – low intensity of news and when a big part of its readers is traveling – to make a reduction in costs and give time off to some workers. Although the newspaper did not circulate some supplements on those days, through the year it offers special sections and magazines besides the weekly supplements. In 2006, we published 55 special products.”
Newspapers such as Folha have goals to reduce the use of paper. Events such as the World Cup of Soccer, the elections and coverage of big scandals – the main events of 2006 – ended up consuming a big part of this quota, and it is understandable that the company makes an effort to save on extra expenses. There are, however, three serious problems with this policy.
1 – Affected products are exactly those which make the difference in editions with less intensity of news. Sunday’s edition, for example, attracts readers who seek, besides information and service, reflection (Mais!) and entertainment (Magazine). Many readers are accustomed to the weekly sections. They are part of their routines and not getting them makes them frustrated. The ideal thing would be to compensate for the extra expense of paper in another way that does not affect the physical structure of the newspaper. It is also true that many readers travel, but subscribers (and the absolute majority of Folha readers is formed by subscribers) who favor the supplement don’t care about reading it when the return from holidays because the sections are atypical.
2 – Readers who wrote to the ombudsman complained, and rightly so, about the newspaper’s lack of explanation. A short advisory on the front page – “Extraordinarily, the Magazine and Mais! don’t circulate today” – did not satisfy them. Readers want more clarification. Even if readers aren’t convinced, at least they need to see signs of respect and consideration.
3 – I believe, finally, that this is not the biggest problem, though it would be in line with reader protests. The biggest problem, in my opinion, is the low quality of the newspaper during these days of low intensity in the news. I reread editions of Folha starting with Saturday, Dec. 23. It is clear that the newspaper was unable – due to lack of personnel, funding and planning – to prepare for the slack days with special editions with stories and columns that surprise readers – and make them feel compensated for receiving a thinner newspaper.
Folha’s tradition is to have sparse year-end editions, to save on paper, but offer good stories prepared in advance. The Christmas and New Year’s editions should be planned as presents to readers. This was not how most people saw their newspapers during this period.
EVALUATION
The mistakes of 2006
Folha in 2006 recognized 1,241 mistakes – 5 0rowth compared with 2005. It does not mean there were more mistakes, but that more mistakes were corrected, which is a great sign. The credibility of news organizations is increasingly associated with their willingness to identify mistakes and correct them. And Folha continues to be the newspaper which makes the most effort to admit its mistakes.
The newspaper evolved this way over the three years that I have followed it as ombudsman: in 2004 it corrected 1,220 mistakes; in 2005, 1,183 mistakes and now, 1,241 – which means in 2006, an average of three to four corrections per day were in the “corrections” section on page A3.
There is one negative aspect, however: the newspaper continues to delay for a long time to correct its mistakes. The sooner mistakes are corrected, the less damage there is to people or companies harmed by the newspaper. The ideal would be to recognize the mistake on the next day, but that is not always possible because most of the cases require checking, which at Folha is performed by the Quality Program.
In the first half of 2004, when I began to follow the number of days the newspaper took on average to recognize a mistake, the result was nine days. The newspaper improved in the second half of that year and the next year, to an average of seven days. Now, in 2006, it worsened: the average changed to eight days.
The biggest number of corrections in 2006 was made by the big daily sections: national news (245), arts and entertainment (204), daily news (190), business (108) and sports (103). Among the supplements, Folha Guide, which circulates in So Paulo on Fridays with cultural and entertainment offerings in the city, leads with 108 corrections. The “corrections” section published 26 corrections of mistakes that appeared on the newspaper’s front page.
As for the requirement to recognize mistakes quickly, there was a big evolution in the section that leads the ranking for number of corrections – national news. In 2004, the average in the section was a week, the next year it improved to six days, and that year ended with an average of five days. It had the best performance among the big sections. The worst performance was in the daily news section, with an average of 11 days.
Folha should have as one of its goals for 2007 to decrease the time it takes to publish corrections. That would be an advance in terms of respect for readers and sources.
Translation by John Wright
