It is common for Folha to use letters that appear in Letters to the Editor with information that improves its news reporting. When this occurs, the newspaper has three distinct procedures:
1) It confirms, with a note at the foot of the letter, the information that was published;
2) It admits that there was a mistake and refers readers to an entry in the corrections section, also on page A3;
3) Or it simply edits the letter contesting stories, but without an answer.
This last procedure leaves room for doubt. If the person who wrote the letter is correct in the questions that he asks, why does the newspaper not admit the mistake clearly? If the newspaper is right, why does it not respond by confirming the information that it considers correct?
Official cars
A recent example: the newspaper published on Saturday, March 26, the story “Government spends more on official cars, and pubic officials skirt rules” (page A4) in which it reported that, in 2003 and 2004, “the Brazilian state increased expenditures on renting, buying and maintenance of official cars by 35%.”
According to the story, this growth was not accompanied by greater control over use of official cars. Among the examples that it caught in the act was the car used by the Communications Minister which, according to the newspaper, circulates with a white license plate without ministerial identification.
The story was highly pertinent. On Thursday, moreover, the newspaper published two letters in Letters to the Editor that contested information in the story. One of them, from the Communications Ministry, explained that the license plate issued by the Department of Transportation is normally covered by another bronze one that identifies it as the car used by the minister, and that this plate is removed only “when the car is taken to the shop for mechanical work or to change the oil.”
The journalists who did the story responded that the photos of the car without the identifying plate were taken at Congress and in the ministry’s parking lot and dismantled the arguments of the press office.
The other letter, however, had no response. Sent by the Planning Ministry, it explained that, contrary to the story which gave the impression that the photos and the cases cited about official cars that circulate in Braslia, a good part of the resources spent by the government on fuel was for the military “in operations for both maintaining peace and public safety in the country and for its involvement in international peacekeeping operations, such as in East Timor and Haiti.”
According to the letter, the increase in spending on the purchase of vehicles occurred in the Defense Ministry (for the operations cited) and Health (ambulances). “For that reason, the increase … in fuel and for the acquisition of vehicles verified in 2004 does not refer, as Folha’s story gives the impression, to official cars for the use of public officials and heads of federal organizations, but to an increase in the level of services provided to society.”
Reading the letter, I concluded that the newspaper was at fault for omitting these facts in Saturday’s story. This impression was reinforced by the lack of existence of any commentary by the newsroom in relation to the official letter. I questioned the point in my internal critique on Thursday. And I received the explanation that I reproduce from reporter Julia Duailibi:
“There was no response from the Planning Ministry because the letter did not question the data in the story. It only tried to justify the expenditures by saying that 750f the increase was due to the acquisition of cars for ‘operations’ in the Health and Defense ministries with the objective of increasing ‘the level of services provided to society.’ Official cars, according to the rules in the Planning Ministry, include vehicles for representation (cars for ministers), service vehicles (transportation of public employees for outside activities of public health and inspections) and vehicles used by the military (not for combat, as the ministry tried to make it sound). Therefore, Folha did not commit any error by saying that the Brazilian government increased spending on rent, purchase and maintenance of official cars by 35%. In fact, at no time did it say that the total spending was on cars for private use by ministers, for example. It only said that, while spending in general grew, oversight of the use of cars (and what is cited includes a transportation van in suspicious circumstances, not only taking care of ministers) did not increase.”
Attentive reader
It has been Folha’s policy to avoid responding to letters to not take space away from readers. The newspaper has restricted responses to exceptional cases. At various times, the lack of rebuttal has shown respect for differing opinions or the recognition of a type of right of response from those who were the subjects in a story. There is, moreover, a positive aspect to this policy.
But, on some occasions, such as the example that I used, it is clear that the newspaper omitted relevant information about the topic. Not admitting it publicly leaves a chance for the following interpretation: the newspaper erred (by lack of information), but it did not want to correct it.
It was this type of doubt that prodded reader Pedro Eugnio Beneduzzi Leite to write to the ombudsman about another matter.
“Letters to the Editor (on March 22) carried two messages referring to the story ‘After supporting PT (the left-leaning Workers Party), Trevisan (auditors) gained market share’ and another one about ‘Sex Education.’ As for sex education, the journalist responsible reaffirmed his position, to make it clear that he researched and dealt with the topic correctly. And, the first two letters? Nothing of the sort! This is truly absurd, since it was already mistaken, and because it was a brutal mistake, a public apology is necessary, since it certainly hurt the image of the company in question. Folha needs to take another look at this. Erring is part of any profession, but fixing the damage caused is an obligation of the one who errs.”
The error pointed out in the Folha story by the two letters was corrected the next day, and I sent a copy of the correction to the reader. I received from him another message that I reproduce because I believe that it reflects what many readers believe.
“That is the question. It just so happens that when someone contests a story and he is right (or so it seems), the answer appears right below: response by so-and-so journalist … When it is clear and certain that there was an error or that it had incorrect information, there is only a response by the one afflicted. I don’t think this is right. Just below the response should be an apology. On another day, sometimes a week later, in the corrections section, it does not have the same impact. And you know this very well, so much that when it is right, it reaffirms the position of the hour, right? I will remain attentive.”
I’ll come back to this topic.
Translation by John Wright
