Sunday’s headline said that the federal police concluded that Berzoini ordered the purchase of the smear dossier; a partial report by the police did not cite the Congressman
Three headlines published by Folha during the week provoked contrary reactions by readers. Two of them, in my opinion, have problems – and I will analyze them – and one is correct.
The dossier
Last Sunday’s headline carried exclusive information about the case of the dossier with accusations against the Brazilian Social Democracy Party (PSDB) that Luiz Antonio Vedoin, accused of running a criminal operation in the Health Ministry, tried to sell to the Workers Party (PT). The headline and the story that supported it were categoric: “For police, Berzoini ordered purchase of dossier.
“After two months of investigation, the federal police and prosecutors concluded (my italics) that the decision to buy the dossier against the PSDB came from Ricardo Berzoini, then-president of the PT and chairman of President Luiz Incio Lula’s campaign for reelection.”
The newspaper tried to foresee, with this information, the report announced by the federal police set for release at the beginning of the week. The story did not have an identified source, which means that the newspaper was sure of the information that it published but can’t reveal its origin.
The story inside did not use the verb conclude, as did the front page, but rather a dubious formulation: “After two months of investigation, federal police and federal prosecutors hold the belief that the decision to buy the dossier against the PSDB came from Ricardo Berzoini, then-president of the PT and chairman of President Luiz Incio Lula’s campaign for reelection.”
The federal police report came out on Monday, but it did not cite Berzoini. It is a partial document, and police asked for another 30 days to conclude their investigations. On Tuesday, the newspaper came out with something tangential in reporting: “The federal police did not discard the possible involvement of the PT president, Ricardo Berzoini, in the dossier scandal, but according to the federal police superintendent in Mato Grosso state, the police ‘are not using this hypothesis at this time.’”
In my opinion, the newspaper was hasty to use that information in a headline. Concluding signifies, in a case like this, having proof to demonstrate; holding a belief means nothing. Is it possible that Berzoini will be cited as the one who ordered the dossier in the final report? It is possible. But it appears that the federal police still don’t have the evidence for this.
I believe that the newspaper was imprudent in this case and ran an unnecessary risk. The newsroom chose to not answer my questions.
Television
Tuesday’s headline – “Government advertising helps bankroll TV station of Lula’s son” – contained a mistake. Until it proves the contrary, Lula’s son does not have a TV station, as a headline on the inside indicates – “State funding helps bankroll TV station of Lula’s son.”
The news, which was on the front page, did not support the headline: “Gamecorp, of Fbio Luiz Lula da Silva, son of President Lula, shares with the Bandeirantes Group the profits derived from federal funding for ads on Play TV (formerly 21 Network). That is what the contract signed with 21 Network called for, between the Bandeirantes broadcasting group and Gamecorp, which produces programs broadcast by Play TV.”
There is legal action by the Bandeirantes group, owner of Play TV, against Abril Publishing. Among various points that need to be clarified in the case is the accusation, made by Abril, that the network had been leased by Gamecorp, which is illegal. According to Bandeirantes, it was just the sale of space.
The next day Letters to the Editor published two letters answering aspects to the story, one of them by the Bandeirantes Group. One of the complaints was about the headline: “Contrary to what the headline said, the son of President Luiz Incio Lula da Silva is not even a shareholder in 21 Network.” Folha’s answer avoided the question: “…the headline referred to the space controlled by Game TV (formerly Gamecorp) in programming on Play TV (formerly 21 Network). Game TV has among its owners Fbio Luiz Lula da Silva. At no time did the story assert that he was a shareholder of 21 Network.” The story did not, but the headline did.
It is important that the newspaper maintain its interest in clarifying this topic. It involves a TV network (public concession), a telephone company (public concession), government advertising (public money) and a company that has the president’s son as a partner. It is a topic of public interest. But there is an error of information in the headline, and the newspaper should correct it. The newsroom did not want to comment about this either.
Donations
The third controversial headline – “Banks lead in donations to Lula” – is correct. The objection raised by some readers was that the defeated candidate, Geraldo Alckmin of the PSDB, received an equal amount from banks, according to the newspaper itself on the front page.
A reader suggested that the headline should have been something like “Banks lead in donations to Lula and Alckmin.” Maybe. But Folha’s headline was not wrong, in my opinion, for one simple reason: Lula won the election, and Alckmin lost.
The main focus by the press must be on Lula, who has the responsibility to preside over the country for four more years. The donations reveal what interest groups will make demands on the next administration, and not on the losing candidate, the most costly donations ever given during an electoral campaign. It is the president who should demand transparency, impersonalization and correction of the relationships that involve the interests of these donors.
The newspaper reported well, during the week, on information furnished by the electoral tribunal about the financing and costs of campaigns. It is information that while it has public interest, it was denied to the public. But I will point out two missing pieces in Folha’s work:
1 – The newspaper did not report as it should have done on data about Alckmin’s campaign. Financial data by the PSDB was turned in late, on Tuesday, well after Lula, and the newspaper should only publish complete information about both campaigns, with graphics, in the So Paulo edition. Readers of the national edition (52%) learned only the details about Lula’s donors. They waited for the newspaper to publish data from Alckmin in the national edition on Thursday. This did not occur, but yesterday the newspaper came out partially with the missing information by revealing companies which have contracts with the So Paulo state government that made donations to the PSDB candidate (Alckmin was formerly the state’s governor).
2 – The newspaper took advantage of information about companies which made donations to those elected to Congress. However, it forgot to cross-check the data at its disposal about the members of the state legislature in So Paulo (the newspaper’s headquarters) and the congressional delegation from the state. What economic, labor and corporate groups helped elect state legislators? And federal? How will the delegations be formed with respect to specific interest groups that act above party interests? What commitments have these parliamentarians who are arriving in office? This is information available from electoral officials in a gross form and should be given special attention by the newspaper because it constitutes providing services for readers.
Reporting on the accounts of So Paulo’s incoming governor, Jos Serra of the PSDB, was little exploited by the newspaper (“In So Paulo, cost of main campaigns increases 83%” on Nov. 3) and should be the object of a new survey for a more detailed analysis, as it did correctly with Lula.
Translation by John Wright
