Heresy and faith
By Bernardo Ajzenberg
September 23, 2002
Three weeks away from a presidential election marked by unpredictability, Folha has already advanced the general lines in the evaluation of its coverage, at least about the most sensitive aspect involved: political impartiality in the news.
This is the main significance of the opinion piece Trees felled, by the national editor, Fernando de Barros e Silva, published last Sunday as a rebuttal to the criticism in my column Sept. 8. In it, I asserted that during the whole first week in September stories in the elections section constituted a pro-Serra cycle to the particular detriment of the candidacies of Luiz Incio Lula da Silva of the left-leaning Workers Party (PT) and Ciro Gomes (once governor of the northeastern state of Cear and former finance minister, he is the presidential candidate for the Peoples Socialist Party). Jos Serra represents President Fernando Henrique Cardosos centrist governing coalition.
Furthermore, I warned about the risk that this deviation, if not interrupted, poses to the newspapers credibility.
In Barros opinion, the ombudsman omitted the main point by evaluating a limited number of editions without critiquing the overall coverage in perspective. He asserted that I saw the tree, but not the forest, using such conduct to call Folhas editorial independence into question to support a thesis that falsifies the general feeling of the coverage.
Taking examples from the first half of the year, the editor sought to show that the newspaper also published material with anti-Serra contents.
Abysm
A newspaper is a living organism. Its a product of the moment, not history or profession of faith. That is the case whether it is reporting a simple event or prolonged coverage. Especially in the latter two situations since it is a political campaign the existence of the ombudsman only makes sense if it, supported by readers and its own critical sense, able to point to hot anomalies before these become injustices with no redress.
Barros knows that the column analyzed the newspaper at an exact moment, without being a theory, an overall appreciation about its policy of independence. Still, there is no way to seriously evaluate the newspapers behavior in the elections before the edition on the day in which voters cast their ballots.
Even more of a competition marked by undulations and about-faces, it seems too presumptuous to ignore that the final stretch could bring new surprises and, for this reason, new challenges for the newspaper.
Perhaps the journalist was obligated to bring the discussion to the field that is called the forest and not the period I used as an example of the favorable weighting of its positive, pre-fabricated evaluation.
What I wrote, besides this, did not by a long shot discard the possibility that the newspaper would commit the same blunder (partiality) in favor of another candidate.
The piece itself, furthermore, cites my May 26 column with a similar warning only in relation to the PT (last week, PT flacks could breathe freely, at least concerning Folha).
Why this time was there no rebuttal to the trees and the forests? Maybe because it took sensitivity to see that there was absolutely no theme, but a portrait of the moment (an expression that the editor uses in a deprecating way) that might serve as food for thought.
There is an abysm between the intention to produce critical journalism and the deed of effectively managing to make it a reality. This requires detailed hard work on the whole. To apply these principles, the same vigilance must be used in all parts, from the captions on photos to the headline on page one. A simple biased headline is enough to make a red light appear even more so when it happens in a series of editions. For this reason, I say that independence does not come from divine revelation; questioning the independence of Folha at certain times is not heresy. To the contrary, it reminds me that it must be won and tested every day.
Risk
In his piece, Barros insinuated that the ombudsman criticized the newspaper for pro-Serra sentiments despite having calculated the risk that the column could be used, as it was, by the PT campaign.
Is it really necessary to recall that former So Paulo Gov. Paulo Maluf also used criticism by the ombudsman for his own purposes? What similar uses more or less opportunistic have there always been since the ombudsman has existed at Folha? Here, he only saw the tree.
Again concerning the PT, my colleague asserts: You expect from a newspaper such as Folha to leave behind the fantasy of publicists and shine a light on the contradictions and problems of the platform and PT governments. Thats fine. There is still time, because up to now it hasnt been able to produce any light except in quite pallid versions.
Obsession
Could it be that Folhas self-confidence has reached the point that such pondering about partiality would only come from obtuse supporters of Ciro Gomes or angry PT members disguised as readers? This is arrogance.
The newspaper knows the road that leads it to credibility and how difficult it is to follow. But it gives signs that it doesnt know how easy it is to lose.
Through the years up to now, by being right more often than it is wrong, Folha has known how to stay safe. But this happens only because it is true, almost fanatically, as a result of immediate self-criticism and severe evaluations. This has been justified for a long time, including the reputation of journalists who work at this newspaper as having very thick skin. Along the lines of healthy obsession, this was the newspapers feeling when it created the ombudsmans position 13 years ago.
With luck, the reader will still have 14 more editions like todays before the election. It seems like a small amount, but fortunately, its not.
Lacking memory
One of the most common complaints by readers is that newspaper, after an enormous uproar about some story, simply abandons it, forgetting to follow up the coverage and sometimes even losing the means that allows them to take it up again. This forgetfulness becomes more serious when there are complaints and reputations of people are put into question during a scandal.
Something of this nature appeared in Folha on Thursday in a case the newspaper highlighted throughout 1999. On March 21 of that year, the sports section revealed the existence of a bribery scheme that had been used by the Lusa soccer team the previous year during the 1998 So Paulo tournament to buy the goalie from Portuguesa Santista with so it could facilitate the game between the two teams (which ended 4-4). The result guaranteed the team a spot in the second round of the championship.
The story, involving the manager of the team and players agent, showed up on the front page and was the main sports story for at least 10 days, aside from the repercussion it had in other news organizations.
Afterward, it remained an important story for months, until August, when prosecutors filed a formal complaint and opened legal proceedings against three Lusa directors and the agent.
This series of stories was nominated for the prestigious Folha prize that year.
After nearly three years, the decision by the courts came out earlier this year, and nothing was published in Folha or anywhere else in the press. As far as I can tell, the first news came out in the sports daily Lance on July 20.
Folha, which broke the story originally and made it one of its main initiatives in 1999, didnt have anything about the decision until much later, last Thursday, in three briefs.
According to the sports editor, Melchiades Filho, the decision about coverage was made this way because the determination and the punishment of the soccer director still werent calculated by judicial authorities (the sentence still is not definitive). As long as they are relevant, the newspaper publishes official judicial decisions, provided it has the resources.
In a case such as this one, which generated so much surprise at the time, it would be natural to give the topic much more attention in the newspaper especially since there were not only two sentences, but also two acquittals.
Its true that the decision was reached months ago. Still, it should have reported the event with the emphasis that it deserved rather than trying to hide it in three briefs.
