The newspaper was correct in asking the federal police to be less frivolous, but it does not hesitate to publish information leaked out drop by drop from inconclusive investigations
Folha reported on Thursday that federal police had tapped the telephone at its Brasia office, located in the press room in the Chamber of Deputies, and the cell phone of one of its reporters. Those numbers were in the memory of a cell phone belonging to Gedimar Passos, one of the members of the Workers Party (PT) investigated in the attempt to buy a dossier smearing the Brazilian Social Democracy Party (PSDB) during the election campaign. According to the federal police, the request, granted by the Justice Ministry, invaded the privacy of 168 numbers, among them Folha.
The police alleged that they did not know that the phone numbers were for the newspaper and said they discarded any investigation that found that calls were made from jails. It reasoned that they were meant to obtain information about that case. In an official release, the police asserted that they had no intention of investigating the newspaper. The police commander responsible for the investigation justified that he was only following standard procedure in seeking the wiretap. The head of the federal police, Paulo Lacerda, said the police action was “within reason.”
While guaranteeing that he would not proceed with investigating Folha when he realized that the numbers belonged to the company, the information obtained in the wiretap was consistent with the report done by the intelligence unit of the federal police, including a police investigation, and sent to the congressional probe into corruption.
Folha reacted, as it customarily does when attacked. Speaking with the press on Thursday, its legal counsel, Orlando Molina, said: “The telephone wiretap utilized by the press is important in monitoring abuses of journalistic activity, which is without a doubt a violation of protection of sources established in the Constitution and Press Law.” The newspaper published a page about the matter on Thursday and another one on Friday, as well as an editorial (“Rights threatened”) and talked to lawyers, former justice ministers and associations which condemned the police action by considering it a threat to press freedom. In the note that it released, the federal police said that it “understands the greater importance of the primacy of press freedom and expression in effect in a democratic nation of laws.” The justice minister said that he has “the greatest respect for the press” and attributed a “post-election hangover” to the tension that marked the relationship between the government and press in recent days.
Readers
Readers who wrote to the ombudsman were divided over the news and its repercussions. Some offered solidarity with the newspaper. “Regarding the wiretaps at Folha, it merits tough action to restrain such tactics or it will be too late” (I don’t feel like identifying readers I quoted because I was unable to get authorization). “How can you send someone to tap the phones without aiming at the owners or subscribers? If this were legal, there would be nothing stopping police from providing the president’s telephone number while omitting this detail from the judge and soliciting a breach of privacy.”
Various readers reacted badly, reviving the hostile climate of the final days of the election campaign. “Right away Folha, which is always meddling in the lives of people, releasing information that was illegally leaked, much of it protected by privacy, now starts raising an uproar because one of its telephones, widely known to be inside a public organization, was included in a list of more than 100 telephones that were tapped??!!” Another reader considered the newspaper’s reaction “disproportional” and an “exaggeration.” “Folha tried to transform a tiny wave into a tsunami.”
I don’t believe that Folha exaggerated in its reaction on the first day, when it reported the wiretap. It was legitimate to argue that the action, independent of police intentions, violated the constitutional right to protect sources. The news on Friday left room for the federal police reasoning. By yesterday, the matter had already cooled down.
Contradiction
There is, meanwhile, an aspect to this case that requires reflection by Folha and other news organizations. In the case of Folha, there is a serious contradiction between the newspaper’s opinion, expressed in its editorials, and the practice of journalism. The editorial “Threatened rights,” on Friday defended, and not for the first time, a premise that I consider correct: “The lack of preparation and self-indulgence by police who confuse investigation with violating privacy at will, endorsed by the attitudes of many judges, constitutes a constant threat to the rights of Brazilian citizens.”
I must add that the press benefits from these resources. Right now, the investigation into the dossier, and in old cases, such as Eduardo Jorge (during the administration of former President Fernando Henrique Cardoso), we see a contradiction. The newspaper asks, and rightly so, that police (I add: and prosecutors, the Justice Ministry and congressional investigators) be less frivolous, but it does not hesitate to publish information leaked out drop by drop, without any proof, from inconclusive investigations. And, in the case of the dossier, it is information that resulted from wiretaps on telephones of former members of PT who were involved in the plot. Some news stories were incomprehensible, fragmented and incomplete.
Various readers touched on this point. A reproduction of one of these messages concludes: “Nobody with a sane conscience could agree to any abuse of authority that puts democratic freedoms at risk. Furthermore, in recent years, and mainly, during election campaigns, newspapers such as Folha and “Estado de So Paulo,” as well as magazines such as “Veja,” created a “presumption of guilt.” Everyone was guilty until proved otherwise. The burden of proof became that of the accused and not the accuser. And the headlines on newspapers were full of these … Until evidence considered illegal by the Justice Ministry appears on the pages of newspapers, this attitude is defended as a basis of press freedom. Now, Folha is the victim of its own instrument that it has fed and strengthened in recent times. Still, we offer solidarity with the newspaper, since we don’t agree with this kind of attitude.”
News about So Paulo
I received from the editor of national news, Fernando de Barros e Silva, through the managing editor, a reply about last week’s column, “The necessary debate.” I made a critique about some aspects that I consider important concerning electoral coverage and wrote, “They (news media) should be criticized for what they did not do. The So Paulo state and municipal administrations run by members of the Brazilian Social Democracy Party (PSDB), for example, were badly covered. Evidence of this disinterest, in the case of Folha, is that the information about the financial deficit of the state only appeared at the end of the first round (of elections) and by the efforts of columnist Mnica Bergamo, also was given routine coverage by the newspaper.”
Barros e Silva responded: “We not only published stories about the topic earlier, but we sought to lend continuity to the scoop with another scoop: the attempt to sell stock in Nossa Caixa (the federal savings and loan) to cover the embezzlement.” He is right about what was missing, proved by the copy he sent me of the story I had disregarded. “With no money, Lembo holds up spending in So Paulo,” published June 10, shows that the newsroom was aware of the deficit inherited from (former Gov.) Geraldo Alckmin. This information in Mnica Bergamo’s column came out Sept. 27.
He is right, but I maintain the opinion that the PSDB administrations in So Paulo state and city were badly covered.
While the topic of the deficit was mainly for readers in So Paulo, the news on June 10 was featured on page 1 only in the national edition.
Translation by John Wright
