Hits and misses
By Bernardo Ajzenberg
August 10, 2003
Newspapers usually keep dedicated files with material about celebrities or important personalities, especially those who are in good health but are already at an advanced age in case they need to quickly adapt material in the event of death. Folha, for example, has a collection of data and regularly updates the information. That was the case with the recent passing of Brazilian media giant Roberto Marinho.
Despite this, in the coverage of his death on Wednesday night, the newspaper, even though it knows what to do at the wholesale level, left a bit of reflection lacking at the retail level. There is a bizarre tradition in this country to glorify illustrious people in death, ending possible differences or rivalries, emphasizing the positive aspects and camouflaging occasional biographical data that might not be complimentary. In other words, it beatifies them.
Folha, appropriately, does not adopt this practice, which is hypocritical in many cases.
Its true that on Thursday it was the newspaper with the most pages (three in the So Paulo edition) dedicated to Marinhos death, exceeding even his own newspaper, the Rio daily O Globo (which had two pages on Thursday and a special section with 28 pages on Friday).
Besides this, it had a teaser about the event at the top of its front page, while O Estado de So Paulo, almost laconic, devoted only one inside page and a teaser much lower on the front page.
But Folhas generosity did not reflect the contents. To the contrary: The tone of the news, on this first day, was ostensibly critical, the most critical among the major newspapers in the country. Even here, I believe, there was some imbalance.
For example, in a biography on an internal page with personal facts and a business and political history of Marinho, the newspaper omitted facets that it usually applauds in other personalities, such as the existence of the Roberto Marinho Foundation and its activities and the integration campaigns at the Globo Broadcasting Network that he founded.
On another page, none of the clipped phrases in the archives illustrate Marinhos ideas in a positive way. All of them, in a certain way, discredited him. In the same edition, while it had a story (superficial, it should be said) about the current economic situation in the Globo Organizations, the newspaper made a point to include, in the main story about the death, a discordant, dispensable phrase: The death of the businessman occurred at a moment in which the (his) companies are going through their biggest financial crisis.
As if it were to compensate for these diversions, they included a column with a praiseworthy tone, besides the innumerable ones with superficial and predictable laudatory statements by business leaders, politicians and others.
Without a doubt, all of this is better than a militant editorial option in favor of one side or the other. I doubt, however, that this is the result of an editorial game of compensations. So normally in practice, it includes the omission of data or facts and/or exposes a strength, sometimes childish, of making rank all the time at any cost.
In journalistic terms, the (more difficult) ideal would be to seek natural and intrinsic impartiality in each element of the edition. In other words: a balanced biography with good and bad phrases, reporting of less panegyric viewpoints alongside those that are less blatantly opportunistic.
There is room for other reservations regarding Folhas coverage. Only on the second day (Friday), did the newspaper publish a profound story (with a critical tone) about Marinhos business history, showing the size, the scope, the heft and the power of this group elements that only then, by the way, supported the generous space given on the previous day.
Also missing, at least until yesterdays edition, were some useful journalistic initiatives to understand the personality who died, his symbolic role and his importance with an analysis of the social and cultural impact of Globo, how news of his death was received overseas, and unpublished statements or revelations about his personal or public character.
Its obvious that coverage of the death of someone such as Roberto Marinho will not be finished in a day or two. It unfolds. It has repercussions in the national and international media. But the positive and negative aspects of the initial reporting, as I sought to emphasize here, says a lot about the authors.
To be and to seem
On Friday, Aug. 1, a reader said via e-mail that the program sold in the Municipal Theatre for the show Ohad Naharin by the So Paulo City Ballet that premiered on July 25 carried a story by dance critic Ana Francisca Ponzio, also the author of the article about the same event in the Folha Guide that week. A similar case happened on March 30.
This duplicity constitutes a dangerous combination. It leaves open the possibility for readers to question the real objectivity of the newspaper in relation to a certain event. They ask if the newspaper writes about the event as being good for them or good for the author of the program, even if indirectly, involved with the same event.
In comments to the ombudsman, the journalist asked: I contributed the story in the program without any remuneration or advantage. Like any journalist, we are required to express opinions in diverse situations, even as a consequence of the credibility that we have built. Everything I said in the program about the event is the same as I would say if some TV reporter asked me about it while leaving the theatre, in a documentary of public debate. My freedom of expression, my independence and the quality of information are preserved, as in all my stories that Folha has published since 1993 without anything unworthy being pointed out up to now.
The staff at the guide said that it was not consulted or informed by the critic that she wrote a story for the ballet program.
My observation is the following: For the journalist and the newspaper its not enough to be impartial or have a clear conscience. Its also necessary to appear impartial.
His or her independence like that of the newspaper must be publicly and clearly reiterated, so there is no chance of wavering or questions. The duplicity that was pointed out here did not contribute to this atmosphere.
On-line corrections
Here is good news: Since Friday, Folhas on-line version on the Internet has instituted a corrections page, dedicated to exposing mistakes in content reported. The access tab is with the main points at the top of the screen (what is called the first scroll), right below editorials.
Upon my request to explain the measure, the acting executive editor of the on-line version, Ricardo Feltrin, asserted:
We have concluded that its not enough to correct occasional errors of information only inside the story already published. This is very simple on the Internet because you open the story on the computer, substitute the mistake for the correct information and youre done. But who has already read the incorrect information? How do they know? So, we have a journalistic obligation to give readers total visibility about our mistakes and their corrections. We and our readers can only win with this and have absolutely nothing to lose.
I agree.
