Fraud beyond the facts
By Bernardo Ajzenberg
September 28, 2003
Police ended their inquiry Wednesday into the faked interview Sept. 7 on the TV variety show Cool Sunday with so-called hooded members of a criminal gang involved in a high-profile kidnaping. The unfortunate event resulted from the savagely competitive environment for audience (in other words, income), seemingly entirely justified in ethical terms when the ruins of journalism combine with training and, worse, are subjected to them, letting them suffocate from their own rules in which there is no difference between reality and fiction.
What is the social role of TV? How was it possible to reach such a level of shamelessness? What level of responsibility does the host (Gugu Liberato) have? What is the responsibility of the network (Brazilian Television System, or SBT)? Where is the boundary between news and entertainment?
Is there or is there not a reason to applaud the suspension of an episode of the program on Sept. 21, decided as a form of punishment in a judicial inquiry? What will happen now?
The questions resulting from the matter are various and most will have an answer only later, in the continuing public debate about the imbroglio in the halls of the judiciary, police, government offices in Braslia and at SBT.
As ombudsman, however, I seek to respond here to another question: Considering the newspapers role in the coverage of an event so serious, complex and controversial, have Folha readers been well served, not only by knowing what happened but to understand it, and from that basis, to form an opinion?
Rereading what was published since Sept. 10, the answer, in my opinion is yes … and no.
Superficial
Folha followed the events closely (complaints of fraud by competitors of the TV station, initiatives by prosecutors and police, public movements by the SBT host and his subordinates in charge of the story, of the actors Alfa and Beta, the judicial decision to suspend the program on Sept. 21, the financial losses of SBT and Gugu, and daily updates of the police investigation).
Columnists in different sections got involved in the topic, most of them approaching the social and cultural aspects of the farce and in a different moment, the controversial decision by judicial authorities (prior censorship or economic sanctions for example?). I also did not see the response by the other side (the fact is that SBT and Gugu imposed a wall of silence on their own and others).
At least through Fridays edition, however, Folha left out some essential points that help to form the particulars in print journalism: the ability to provide, stimulate and increase reflection for readers beyond the immediate emotional reactions.
The Constitution has specific articles regarding communications (freedom of expression and social responsibility). Brazils telecommunications law calls for punishment (fines, suspension, removal) for institutions and individuals who dont obey it. There is a press law and penal code.
Can readers understand, starting with what was published, how such stories relate to the event? In the end, what are the formal accusations against those who promoted the fraud? And the station? What are the possible punishments? How do you structure the hierarchy at SBT and Good Sunday in this regard?
What laws did judicial authorities apply to suspend the broadcast with a preliminary injunction on Sept. 21 (it is the first time that a decision of this type has been made since 1988)? What do these biases say?
What type of supervision does the Justice Ministry have over TV programs? Does it function in practice? Where is the discussion about implementation of an ethical code or one of self-regulation (today non-existent) for the TV stations? What do the laws of other countries have to say about this topic?
Bias and ammunition
In this landscape considering context, delving deeply, laying bases and strength in the news Folha did not do a good job. Not only for the lack of precision, greater information and instruction, but also to present in the statements and opinions published in the news a certain bias contrary to the decision that suspended the program. That was, by the way, the same position taken by the newspaper in an editorial on Sept. 23 defending punishment but only after judgment and according to the law characterizing the suspension as prior censorship and unconstitutional.
Even in my personal opinion, there are many individuals and institutions that are competent and democratic but in good faith think differently (suspension would have been a sanction, not censorship). That was not completely brought out in the stories (with interviews, for example).
The only technical article (in juridical terms), that of columnist Walter Ceneviva on Sept. 21 anticipated the editorial line. In the next edition, rounding up the statements of other experts, the story was done in a brief superficial way, accumulating inconsistent phrases in a small story called Experts differ on TRF decision. It was published in the op-ed section yesterday, with opinion pieces for and against the preliminary injunction.
I believe the newspaper got more from rearranging its focus on the news, better arming the readers besides the day-to-day facts so that citizens can act in a consistent way in a difficult discussion that has only begun.
Three topics from Istanbul
Attendees at last weeks meeting of the Organization of News Ombudsmen in Istanbul, Turkey, discussed three significant topics concerning the role of readers advocates, among other points. Its worth telling about them.
1) Le Monde (France) Robert Sol, the ombudsman since 1998, recounted an episode in which the newspaper was censored. In the March 2 column this year, editors removed 15 lines. Those lines said that the newspaper should not react only in a generic way to accusations against its management contained in the best seller The Occult Face of the World (which came out in the beginning of this year) without clarifying serious points. They said that the newsroom registered mistakes in the book which would have come out sooner or later. Instead of quitting, Sol preferred to include the censored passage the following week, explaining what happened. To the side was an explanation with an apology, signed by the managing editor.
2) The New York Times (USA) Despite praising the newspapers decision to create an ombudsmans position (public editor, still not filled) after the Jayson Blair case, participants at the meeting raised doubts about things that could limit his power: a) the lack of a column with the place and day set by the newspaper (expecting that he will write but without establishing regularity); b) being subordinate to the managing editor in the hierarchy instead of having a formally independent position in the internal structure; and c) the time frame of a one-year mandate, an experiment with no greater guarantees. Well see.
3) BBC Acknowledging mistakes by journalist Andrew Gilligan in the matter that generated the historic clash between the government and British public network involving the suicide of scientist David Kelly, it verified the lack of internal controls and discussed the creation of an ombudsman.
In an op-ed piece in The Guardian newspaper on Sept. 20, Alan Rusbridger, managing editor of that newspaper, who made a speech in Istanbul, defended the idea: So much damage and such a tragedy could be avoided if the organization had quickly published a balanced and cautious clarification about the points in Gilligans story that could not be defended. Well also see about this.
