Folha was right to publish the photographs of the money and conceal the identity of the source, but it was wrong to allow the fake story by the precinct commander
More than 250 readers wrote to the ombudsman since last Sunday about the presidential elections. The thesis was that a good part of the messages repeat stirring up proof of the low level of the electoral campaigns by the Workers Party (PT) and Brazilian Social Democracy Party (PSDB). The election created an environment of conflict and, consequently, of irrationality. Readers from both parties not only scrutinize the newspaper, which is completely desirable, but treat it as an ally or enemy depending on the party’s choice. A photo of President Luiz Incio Lula da Silva or rival Geraldo Alckmin taken at an unusual angle is sufficient reason to question the newspaper’s motives.
It is possible to also perceive a growing “villianization” of the press (borrowing the term used by political scientist Renato Lessa in “Press Observatory”). Speeches by politicians about the press were always dubious and zigzagging, whether treating them as a pillar of democracy or whether accusing them of partiality, in line with the interest of the moment. What there is again these days is the attempt, irresponsible in my opinion, to make the big press a participant in a big blow.
The mistakes, diversions of funds, crimes or what name you want to give to the scandals that accompany them, have their origins in actions by politicians and parties – like the PT and PSDB – and were not invented by the press.
Mistakes
This does not mean that the press has been doing good work on these elections. There are serious problems. The first of them is the subordination by federal police, prosecutors and congressional investigations, without the counterpart of its own journalistic probe. Reporting that the official investigations are in progress is indispensable, but coverage should not be limited to this.
One aspect that contributed to the stirred-up atmosphere that took charge of the parties, the news media and readers is the slow pace of the police investigation into the corruption cases and the Vedoin dossier.
The difficulty advancing the investigations, the lack of transparency by federal police and the lack of confidence in the federal police and prosecutors compete for use in the campaign with journalistic coverage that is always inconclusive and premature.
The most emblematic case of these diversions of resources occurred last week on the covers of the magazines “Veja” and “Carta Capital.” The two were dealing with an electoral campaign with contrary results. Both started with little information and much speculation for conclusions that still have not been proved.
The formula itself on the covers shows this fragility. In “Veja” the headline is conclusive – “High-risk cleaning,” but the teaser is not: “The operation to cover the origin of the money (to buy the Vedoin dossier to smear the PSDB) could be the most devastating yet for this administration.” Maybe it is. And maybe it is not.
The main story in “Carta Capital” – “The scheme that took away the second term” – blamed some in the press for having benefitted “the PSDB candidate in a decisive way, on the eve of the presidential elections, with the release of photos of the money (to buy the dossier) and hiding crucial information in the coverage of the dossier scandal.”
According to the magazine, on the morning of Sept. 29 giving a CD with the photos taken of the money found with PT members caught red-handed in the hotel in So Paulo, Police Precinct Commander Edmilson Pereira Bruno had a private conversation with four journalists, one of them from Folha, in which he said that he took the pictures without the knowledge of his superiors and plotted a strategy to guarantee that he not be discovered. He said that he told his superiors that a CD with the photos had been stolen from his table. Part of the reporting was based on a conversation between the chief and reporters that was overturned during the week because the magazine’s version was incomplete.
The impression that the two magazines gave, for those who read with the minimum of independence, is that they in fact had relevant information that deserved, and still deserves, to be investigated, but was published prematurely. The information should have been checked out better. These are the two examples, with opposing biases, from the same model of journalism.
The photos
There is an aspect to the story in “Carta Capital” that speaks directly to Folha and demands an evaluation. All the newspapers gave the photos a lot of play on the eve of the first round in the election, and various ones, including Folha, published the story of the theft knowing it had been invented by the precinct commander.
How do you evaluate the newspaper’s procedures? First, it acted correctly to publish the photos. They have undeniable public interest.
The newspaper was also correct in concealing the name of the precinct commander who passed along the photos and asked to not be identified. The constitutional guarantee to protect sources is one of the pillars of the press and democracy.
But the newspaper was wrong, in my opinion, to back up the story invented by the precinct commander that the CD had been stolen.
Folha’s position
Folha, however, believes that it acted correctly, according to Executive Editor Eleonora de Lucena. “Folha believes that it acted correctly, rigorously and transparently in the photo episode involving the money for the dossier. In the first place, the images have obvious public interest, which justified the publication. The newspaper obtained the information under the commitment of protecting the source, a constitutional guarantee. For this reason, the newsroom did not identify the person responsible for the leak.
“In the same story, Folha gave its position “on the record” with police commander Edmilson Pereira Bruno, who spoke about the theft and denied his participation in the matter.
“Leaving out these words signifies censorship of a statement made by the protagonist in this event. Any other reservation or addendum would represent breaking the promise made by the newspaper to protect his identity. The judicious and responsible work done by reporter Lilian Christofoletti was crucial because Folha followed the whole case and its developments. The next day, when the precinct commander took responsibility for the leak, the newspaper put the news on the front page. It also published the opinions of the administration and PT about the release of the photos. It performed independent, critical and non-partisan journalism, as established in its editorial project, that it not allow information to be politically manipulated and perversion of reality.”
Folha could have published the photos with the information that it received them from a source who could not be revealed. It did not need to cooperate with the farce invented by the police commander.
Since 1984, when it put out its first stylebook, the newspaper adopted a procedure to escape from artifices and lies when it has relevant, proved information whose origin should be kept anonymous: it is the formula “Folha has learned …” It gives management of the newspaper responsibility for the accuracy of the information and avoids inventing stories or people to fool readers.
The next day, when the precinct commander took responsibility for the leak of the photos, the newspaper was free to publish the conversation he had with reporters, of obvious journalistic interest.
Responsibility
Here is one last aspect of journalist coverage. The press made it clear in this election that, despite the maturing experimentation of the past two decades, it continues to prefer gossip, chatter, conflicts, polls, coverage subordinated to the capriciousness of marketeers to the weary work of thinking, reflecting, analyzing and investigating.
In this sense, it without a doubt also contributed to the deteriorating climate at the end of this electoral campaign.
Translation by John Wright
