The weekly news magazine Veja which circulated on Saturday, May 14, carried a story which would mark the rest of the week. “The videotape of corruption in Braslia – the incredible sequence of money changing hands from the corruptor to the pockets of the corrupt. In addition: unforgettable dialogue!”
That was the headline you saw on the cover. Inside, there was a long and well-illustrated story that reproduced scenes and dialogues from the video that caught a Postal Service official receiving money red handed and revealing a scheme that involved his party, the leftist Brazilian Labor Party (PTB), and the centrist Brazilian Democratic Movement Party (PMDB), besides citing names of various companies.
The news had instant repercussions, not only from the shock that documented accusations always provoke, but also from being published at a moment of extreme political weakness of the Workers Party (PT) administration. To use a clich, it exploded like a bombshell – and its effects were immediate.
Except at Folha. The newspaper was a latecomer in waking up to the case. In Sunday’s edition, it only published a small note at the bottom of page A4, “Postal Service will investigate corruption case.” On Monday, it was equally parsimonious. The matter did not get space on the front page, and in editions outside So Paulo the story was brief and bureaucratic. The exception was the political briefs section and a column from Braslia. The main topic in the newspaper was a survey about income by the PT since Lula took office.
Folha’s aloofness was even more uncomfortable with the omission, on that Monday, of another important accusation about corruption: the news magazine “Fantstico” on the Globo TV network on Sunday night showed excerpts from videotapes that caught members of Congress from the Amazonian state of Rondnia trying to bribe the governor.
In my internal critique, I pointed out the defects. “Folha dealt badly with the two cases of corruption that arose over the weekend.” Rereading the editions, I believe that I was condescending. Only Tuesday did the newspapers give the two matters the attention they deserved. In the “Veja” case the headline was (“Opposition tries to create special commission to investigate Postal Service”). The “Fantstico” item was also on the front page (“Tapes generate crises and act against censorship in Rondnia”).
Still, the newspaper delayed in giving direction to the cases. The slugs that classify topics proved this. The Postal Service matter came out Sunday as “Investigation,” on Monday as “Tremor in the base,” on Tuesday as “Straight into the bag,” on Wednesday as “Postal Service crisis” and Thursday as “Government under pressure.”
On Wednesday, I criticized the newspaper again for not publishing any letters from readers commenting on the scandals. It was not possible that nobody was interested. On Thursday some of those came out. It is not the first time that the newspaper reacted slowly to the facts. This occurs mainly on weekends, when staffing is smaller and most of the material is produced in advance. It is difficult to understand news and escape planning. For this reason, Monday’s editions are frequently dry, even when there are relevant events, such as the scandals at the Postal Service and in Rondnia.
Time for searching
Here is an observation about the behavior of the press in general. The simultaneous explosion of scandals, such as what we see now, should trigger a warning light in newsrooms. This is the most difficult time for journalism.
Competition for exclusive information that can bring down an official or cause a politician to be removed from office has contributed to a worsening of internal quality control mechanisms. At these times, newspapers and magazines write their best pages, but also commit their worst mistakes.
We have gone through similar episodes, such as the resignation of President Fernando Collor de Mello (in 1992 amid accusations of corruption), the budget scandal, overbilling for the courthouse in So Paulo and so many others, to know that this race without brakes ends in disasters and injustices.
The importance of these cases – and others that probably will arise – demands that reporters dig deeply into inside information about power and in journalistic investigations, without losing sight of credibility they are reaching for and maintain precise information, documented accusations and balanced coverage.
FROM READERS
More space for readers
I have already criticized Folha on various occasions for the excess of letters from authorities in “Letters to the Editor” that end up taking away space from commentary and criticism by readers. In recent days I received suggestions that I will reproduce as follows. They could help the newspaper reformulate the space it should give to readers.
“I’m not going to join the chorus of those who demand space in ‘Letters to the Editor.’ To the contrary, I will make a suggestion, despite recognizing, after the complaints mentioned in your column, that the situation is already a little bit better.
“What about creating a space where authorities, near-authorities, ex-authorities, would-be authorities, advisers and others of this type can respond and contest information? That way, those readers who are more readers than others (paraphrasing George Orwell), that today occupy a good part of ‘Letters to the Editor,’ would have their own space. That would leave the rest to mere mortals who buy and subscribe to the newspaper, a space which would become richer with opinions that could go beyond habitual responses.”
-Henrique Csar de Conti, Braslia
“I always read the author of the message first. If it is Mr. or Mrs. Jones, I always read it. If it is an “official” response, I never read it. From there is a commentary: ‘official’ responses should have their own space and not mix with letters from other readers.
“It could be done with a border, such as when a text is advertising or promotional. … If we add the role of the ombudsman to ‘Letters to the Editor,’ also democratic, we have a newspaper democratically modern and feedback for readers. It would be the recognition that readers want to increasingly participate instead of having things already done for them.
-Leovi Antonio Pinto Carisio, Belo Horizonte
“I suggest the creation on this page and a half, to not alter the layout of current pages, with a section for complaints. Then, journalists who put bylines on stories will have an obligation to comment on the letters and would be unable to avoid it. It’s convenient that space is not a problem for this newspaper, right? Because if it is, that would be the end.”
-Renato Vercesi
Op-ed pieces
On Monday, May 16, “Letters to the Editor” published a letter in which Hlio Batista de Oliveira Jnior complained about the frequency with which the newspaper publishes opinion pieces by Sen. Jorge Bornhausen, president of the conservative Liberal Front Party (PFL), in the op-ed section.
The message did not have any effect. The next day, the newspaper ran another piece by the senator, “Democracy vs populism.” Then I received a letter from Edilson Ado Silva of So Paulo: “So it does not appear to be ideological policing, I recommend that they do a survey about those who have written most in the section in recent times. I think Bornhausen would win easily.”
A survey confirms that the senator is the one who most often contributes pieces on page A3. This year, he had six in five months. Following him, with five pieces each, are Gen. Carlos de Meira Mattos, physicist Rogrio Cezar de Cerqueira Leite and lawyer Ives Gandra Martins.
Bornhausen also lead the ranking last year, with 15 pieces published in 12 months. The newsroom did not want to comment on the issue.
Translated by John Wright
