Folha on Wednesday published the entire letter that philosopher Marilena Chaui sent to her students at So Paulo University in which she made a negative analysis about the performance of newspapers in the coverage of the political crisis and defended her right to not make her declarations through the press.
It is the most important part of a controversy that took newspapers to task in the seminar “Silence of Intellectuals,” which started in August and extends through the beginning of October. Although it was planned in 2004, the seminar ended up confusing, in the press, the crisis in the administration of President Luiz Incio Lula da Silva and his left-learning Workers Party (PT).
I received 17 messages from readers commenting on Folha’s initiative. Nine of them questioned the newspaper for publishing the letter without the approval of the author and considered it one more abuse by the press. Four favored publication and agreed with the analysis and criticism she made. Two protested with the understanding that the philosopher did not merit so much space in the newspaper. And two criticized the publication of a letter associated with the “allowance”(bribery) scandal.
The national news editor, Fernando de Barros e Silva, justified publication this way: “Chaui’s letter, sent to her students, was already circulating on the Internet when Folha published it. Since the previous Sunday, at least, it was even posted on a blog with significant emphasis. It was, therefore, public. With obvious journalistic interest beyond what was written, Folha took two precautions: 1) it sought the author by email and telephone, informing her about the topic, but did not get a response through today; 2) it contacted four of Chaui’s students and two colleagues to certify that the letter really was hers.”
Professor Francisco Jos Karam, of Santa Catarina Federal University and the author of “Journalistic Ethics and the Public Interest” (Summus Publishing, 2004), said that Folha was right to publish the letter. “I believe it is valid and ethical to use the letter. It is not simply a private letter. It has public relevance and criticizes the media and journalists. If it were not right to publish it, the same would apply to various other documents which, for journalistic courage and news value: political leaders and public personalities. And nothing shows Chaui negatively in personal aspects. It favors and contributes to the public debate about politics and about journalism.”
I tried to speak with Marilena Chaui on Friday, through journalist Adauto Novaes, organizer of the seminar “Silence of Intellectuals,” but the answer I received was that she did not want to be interviewed.
I believe it is proper for the newspaper to publish the letter and I only lament that it did not take advantage of the situation to start a general discussion about the role of the press. While I could disagree with various points in the professor’s political analysis, I agree with a good part of the criticism she made, mainly when she analyzes the performance of the press at this moment and points to what she calls “disinformation.” There is, in fact, a bombardment of missing news and presentation of opinion as news.
She opens discussion about two important aspects of journalism which we can’t escape. An old one, at the heart of it, deals with arrogance of the press. And another, more immediate, refers to the quality of coverage we see in the political crisis.
The ignored poll
Opinion polls require careful journalistic treatment. Looking at them inattentively or negligently can cause serious mistakes.
The latest Ibope survey, which comes out every three months for the National Industrial Confederation (CNI) was released on Wednesday. Comparing Thursday’s editions of some newspapers show various mistakes.
Disapproval for Lula’s administration was 38 0n June and now is 49%. The approval rate has also changed: it was 55% and is now 45%. With a margin of error at 2.2 percentage points, the loss of prestige by the president and his administration is unquestionable.
Ibope happened to take a similar survey on Aug. 18 and 22 for another client. The comparison of the results in September with August indicate a reality a little different from the one pointed out by the comparison with June: the credibility of Lula’s administration, which had been falling since June, had already fallen to 45 0n August. In September, however, there was no change.
Not all the news organizations took the effort to point this out. And it is important, not because it works to the favor or disfavor of the administration, but because it is the reality captured by surveys.
Folha’s behavior was incoherent. Internally, it highlighted the quarterly survey, a correct choice from a journalistic point of view, and reported that “the increase in the rate of disapproval for the administration and lack of confidence in the president … needs to be analyzed cautiously” because of the August survey. The newspaper even published a warning by the head of Datafolha, Mauro Paulino:
“The comparison (with August) shows that there was no decline, such as what most news organizations (websites and TV) reported yesterday (Wednesday), but stability in opinions about the administration.”
But the newspaper’s front page ignored its own reflections and only reported the old results in the comparison between the September and June data, not taking into consideration August and the stability pointed out by the Ibope and Datafolha surveys.
Even newspapers which are traditionally cautious, such as “Valor Econmico,” neglected the August poll and based their news exclusively on the quarterly survey. Some headlines showed the results of this omission: “Confidence in Lula plunges” (“Extra”), “Dropoff in all social classes” (Jornal do Brasil) and “Confidence plunges in Lula” (“Correio Braziliense”).
Among the newspapers I consulted, only “Zero Hora” of Porto Alegre published the information with a historic look at opinions about the administration, including the surveys in July and August, and not just June and September. And the inside headline in the Rio daily “O Globo” showed the best portrait of the phenomenon that we saw: “After accentuated drop, Lula’s popularity remains stabile.”
INTERNAL COMMUNIQUE
Special reports
Folha released new guidelines for editors regarding publication of stories by reporters sent to do special reports. The communique, signed by the newspaper’s executive editor, Eleonora de Lucena, was distributed by the managing editor on Thursday.
The new guidelines are welcome. Initial coverage of the damage by Hurricane Katrina in the southern United States, at the beginning of September, showed that the newspaper should be more careful in the use of bylines on special reports (see the ombudsman’s column on Sept. 4, “The special artifice,” and Sept. 11, “Effects of Katrina.”
I reproduce, so readers can understand and monitor, Folha’s entire internal communique: “To increase transparency in special reports, we should be more faithful to the journalist’s work when crediting stories. Still, when the work situation is very precarious and/or deadline approaches when arriving at the location of journalistic coverage, making it impossible to produce the most important and complete story of the day, the main story should be credited to international agencies, putting the special report and its first impressions in a separate story. In routine situations, the special correspondent gets bylines on his story and, if necessary, should mention, at the foot of the story, the work of agencies and/or other collaborators.”
Translation by John Wright
