The press could have already reached the conclusion that it is impossible to believe information from congressional investigations that are not official
This was Folha’s headline on Tuesday: “Congressional investigation said to have proof against 800f those investigated.” In other words, the congressional investigation of the “bloodsuckers,” which is probing accusations of fraud in the purchase of ambulances with public resources, had evidence against about 90 members of Congress. Then came Friday’s headline: “Congressional investigation now said to have evidence against only 30 members of Congress.”
The press had already reached a conclusion about the work of the congressional investigations: it is impossible to believe information that is not official. Even better is when it is not approved in final reports. Until then, the release of information is subject to interests that are personal, political, partisan, or at this time, electoral.
This makes journalistic work even more difficult. News organizations must know how to deal with the two forces that usually squeeze it: the obligation to produce vigilant journalism concerning public powers (and this commitment can’t be abandoned in a country such as ours, with a lack of resources and high rates of corruption) and the necessity to not commit injustices and not denigrate, nor expose people without proof.
The first force demands action; the second, caution. They are not incompatible. Good journalism is in the production of documented stories that can help society and the country warn against corruption.
Newspapers are unable to avoid publishing official information, which is put out publicly by members of Congress with duties in the congressional investigations. But:
1-They should have their own journalistic investigations that allow them to confirm or question with assurance the information that they provide to their readers. In the case of the “bloodsuckers,” once again the newspapers have few of their own investigations and depend on information passed to them by members of Congress.
2-Information that is not proven, or even official, should require from newspapers the same treatment that was given when it was published as fact. Folha did that Friday, with a headline that repositioned the proof collected by the congressional investigation into the “bloodsuckers.”
3-They should be more careful with information leaked by members of Congress or their advisers who do not want to be identified. In these cases, they should not rush. It is worthwhile for the newspaper to take a few days to confirm information rather than publish it any which way to avoid losing exclusivity. We already have a long history of stories about congressional investigations that got a lot of play which originated with anonymous inside sources but were never confirmed. This is also worthwhile for news that comes out without identification from sources in prosecutors’ offices or police.
Eduardo Jorge and Jos Dirceu
Two items:
1-Folha was fined on July 11 and ordered to pay 200,000 reals (about US $92,000) for damage caused to the reputations of Eduardo Jorge Caldas Pereira, a top-level official in the administration of former President Fernando Henrique Cardoso. He labeled as offensive various stories published by the newspaper in 2000 and 2001 involving the case of diverting public funds for the construction of a courthouse in So Paulo.
The judge did not accept Folha’s defense and instead ruled on the fact that the parliamentary investigation commission into the judiciary had no proof against Eduardo Jorge.
I mention the fine because Folha did not report it. It should have done so. I won’t go into the merits of the fine because it is not definitive. The newspaper filed an appeal.
2-Jos Dirceu, former chief of staff for the government of President Luiz Incio Lula da Silva, complained about the way Folha reported the news about the official agreement he signed with Joo Francisco Daniel, brother of the former mayor of Santo Andr who was assassinated in January 2002. The brief item, “Dirceu and Daniel’s brother reach agreement with Justice Ministry” was published Wednesday at the bottom of a page. The story was even smaller in the national edition.
The congressman, who was removed from office, is right. The accusations that he received 1.2 million reals (about US $550,000) in illegal contributions from companies in Santo Andr, made in June 2002 by Joo Francisco against the then-president of the Workers Party (PT), had wide repercussions and were repeated prominently through these years. Nothing is more just, however, than giving visibility to the agreement signed at the Justice Ministry that benefits Jos Dirceu.
The press on the press
I will reproduce some phrases published in recent days that help us to think a little bit about the role of the press.
Middle East
“I believe that the press is becoming a branch of the entertainment industry. Most publications, even the ‘New York Times,’ give an enormous amount of space to showbiz and celebrities. There is no serious coverage about the news, there is no debate of ideas. At least not in the English-language press, which I know well. I believe that this is a general tendency in much of the world, and I lament it. Because of this, I believe that there are many readers who want something more serious and more amusing, in other words.”
-Christopher Hitchens, journalist, in “Flight of the Falcon,” an interview with “Mais!” (Folha, June 23, 2006)
Quotas
“The survey shows that the lack of information is fertile ground to work on the concepts of the topic. The way these concepts are being communicated and debated, mainly in news media, will be determinant starting with the position of Brazilians about the issue. That is the role surveys follow and reveal occasional changes in this scenario.”
-Mauro Paulino, general manager of Datafolha, in the analysis “Need for Information” about the opinion survey concerning quotas (Folha, July 23, 2006)
Electoral debate
“A free press is the most important part in democracy. Its defects can be debated, in part, in the sad reality that our propensity for vilification slips in silently and calmly; and the obligatory professionalism to make history where history stopped. And, most important, the electoral debate with few ideas and many intrigues.”
-Joo Sayad, economist, in the opinion piece “The professions: 1 – journalists” (Folha, July 24, 2006)
Congressional investigations
“In cases of scandals there is indemnification.”
-Mrcio Chaer and Priscyle Costa, journalists, in the opinion piece “Story About the Party” (“Consultor Jurdico,” July 20, 2006)
Translation by John Wright
