The topic that provoked the most letters to the ombudsman in the first week of the year was Folha’s coverage of the New Year’s Eve party attended by Jos Dirceu – a former member of Congress and Cabinet minister who was removed for his role in a corruption scandal – at the home of writer Paulo Coelho in southern France. There were two stories by columnist Mnica Bergamo, one on Jan. 1, with a photo and teaser on the front page, and the other one on Jan. 3, with a whole page given to her column in the arts and entertainment section, with six photos and the headline “The sorcerer and the shaman.”
I found the detailed story on Tuesday well done, but coverage seemed excessive and I made a brief commentary about it in my internal critique: “Former Congressman Jos Dirceu has nothing to complain about, at least not from Folha. He was treated in Mnica Bergamo’s column, once again, as a celebrity and not as a politician who was kicked out of office.”
Letters to the Editor published one letter on Wednesday and four on Thursday. Only one defended the former congressman. The others criticized the politician and the newspaper’s coverage. I also received many messages from readers, all of them critical of the newspaper.
Dance instructor Lilian Moreira wrote from New York: “I believe it was a mistake for the newspaper to take on the role of press agent for Jos Dirceu and do this senseless fawning. It is unfortunate for readers.” Adonias Cruzes, an engineer from So Paulo, wrote that he “would very much like to know what motivated Mnica Bergamo to go to France.”
Mrcia Monteiro of Aracaju complained about the amount of attention. “Jos Dirceu is not worthy of a column nor is he a celebrity. Who cares what he does? Give me a break!” Eliana de Morais of Salvador believes the coverage was “ridiculous.” Prosecutor Jorge Alberto Marum of Sorocaba believes that the emphasis given by Folha was “very strange” and said he did not understand the newspaper’s efforts to transform Dirceu into a “pop celebrity.”
One reader who did not want to be identified sent his opinion about stories and columns written by Mnica Bergamo about the former congressman: there were stories or passages published on Dec. 10, 13, 17, 20, 25 and 26 and Jan. 1, 3 and 5. He found the exposure “abusive.”
Social reporting has its peculiarities and is not always well understood. For this reason, I asked Mnica Bergamo to comment about the criticism. Here is what she said:
“In the beginning of December, when Paulo Coelho spectacularly changed publishers, I took the initiative to do a story about him. Coelho suggested by telephone that we make an appointment for New Year’s Eve. He would be at his house, in the South of France, and he could receive me. I thought it was a good idea: I could produce material for a social column and an interview for the arts and entertainment section (front page last Sunday). The newspaper approved the assignment and the financial costs for the trip. Close to the date of my departure, we found out that Jos Dirceu would also be received by the writer, an unprecedented event that enriched the story. I traveled, witnessed the meeting between the two personalities and sought to do an unbiased story about what happened. From the standpoint of the relevance of these two personalities, I believe the story was clearly justified. Jos Dirceu was removed, but for this reason is an emblematic person, and how he lives now it is a matter of public interest. From the viewpoint of the story, I believe that I managed to reach the objective always sought by the column: tell readers objectively with rich details everything I saw and heard. Readers, with this information can then make up their own minds.”
There is no doubt that the former congressman, a main figure in the crisis that dominated 2005, is news, but the way the newspaper treated him, as a celebrity, ended up weakening the accusations against him that caused Congress to remove him. I don’t believe that is a problem specific to this journalist but is (lack of) balance at the newspaper.
Three suggestions for 2006
Folha has already announced that it will do a graphic makeover this year. The last change occurred in May 2000.
In an interview with the electronic news site “Journalists & Co.” in November, Editor-in-Chief Otavio Frias Filho confirmed that the newspaper already was working on the new project and that way would define its goals: “We want better malleability and diversity in Folha’s graphic standards. Our graphic standard, since the 1990s, is deliberately rigid and we are interested now in better diversity in printing along with artistic design in the sections and pagination. We are also interested in valuing the space for interpretation, opinion and analysis. There is a certain consensus in which quality journalism should increasingly reinforce these aspects, seeking to deepen interpretive context in the news.”
I take advantage of this to make three suggestions to the newspaper, all of them inspired by contact with readers.
Suggestions
Letters to the Editor – The newspaper should take advantage of the graphic makeover to increase the space for reader participation and influence. The pressure for participation is increasingly greater, a demand stimulated by the great supply of information these days and facilitated by the Internet.
The number of messages to the ombudsman shows this clearly. In 1996, the newspaper had circulation of 519,000 copies a day and the ombudsman received 6,201 messages, 19.320f them by email. Now, we should end 2005 with an average daily circulation of 308,000 copies and the ombudsman received 10,688 messages, 950f them by email.
The use of letters received at Letters to the Editor is slight. In 2005, the newspaper received 33,005 letters (9% more than in 2004) and published 2,722 (6 0.000000ewer). In 2004, it used 9.10f the letters sent; in 2005, it was 8.25%.
The section published on Sunday is an indication of letters received on a topic. There it is clear how the topics of biggest interest by readers get little space. I did a survey of five weeks, from Nov. 28 to Jan. 1. During this period, the newspaper received 2,775 letters, published 254 (9.2%), since 49 (190f letters published) refer to the topic of biggest interest by readers, and 60 (24%) were penned by public relations professionals or people exercising the legitimate right of response.
The ideal would be for the newspaper to find distinct places for the two types of letters in such a way that readers get more space for opinion. The “Washington Post,” for example, besides a daily letters section, reserves an entire page on Saturday (“Free for all”) exclusively for readers to comment on the topics of the week.
Opinion pieces – The same rationale for letters works for opinion pieces published on page A3, the op-ed section. It is another point in which participation of readers is repressed.
The newspaper in 2005 received about 2,700 opinion pieces and published 724. Only 200 were commissioned by the newspaper; the rest came at the initiative of readers. Folha has as criteria for publication the opportunity and relevance of the topic, the clarity of the piece, the writer’s domination of the subject matter and its representation. I imagine that many pieces not used fill these requirements and could be included if there were more space.
Corrections – Here are two pieces of data positive for the newspaper: in 2005 it corrected 1,183 errors of information, an increase of 4.70ver 2004. The corrections took on average seven days to be published, which is still high but better than the previous year, when it was eight days.
Folha in 1991 dedicated a fixed space for repairing mistakes, the corrections section, on page A3, which contributes to its credibility. This is still the newspaper that regularly recognizes the most mistakes in information. It is time to take a step forward with faster, more visible corrections.
Translation by John Wright
