Folha still has not gotten it right in coverage about topics concerning Daslu, the most luxurious store in the country, according to the newspaper itself.
It exaggerated in the amount of uncritical space it gave at the beginning of June to the opening of the megastore, as I pointed out in my column … and the new Daslu on June 12. As well, it was exaggerated and partial last Wednesday when it reported on the arrest of two partners and an employee for tax evasion.
Before the store opened, on June 4 and 5, the newspaper published 21 items in columns, five stories and an entire page bylined by Mnica Bergamo on the topic. The opening days got three more columns, three stories and one article.
Even taking into account the commercial and symbolic importance of the undertaking, coverage seemed to me excessive in the amount of space and outside Folhas critical project.
On Thursday, the newspaper exaggerated once again. It published the equivalent of five pages about the arrest of Eliana Tranchesi, much more than its two direct competitors, O Estado de So Paulo and the Rio daily O Globo, which devoted two pages apiece to the topic.
I saw no problems in the stories that told about the federal police operation. The newspapers headlines (Federal police operation detains Daslu owner) and the stories about the police action in the business section (Federal police detain Daslu owner accused of tax evasion, Action began in the US, prosecutor asserts, Tax authorities investigate other companies) were correct and informative. And it also made space, as is customary, to defend those accused by federal authorities: There was no motive for arrests, says executives lawyer.
What seemed to be outside of the intentions were commentaries and repercussions published by the newspaper, all with the same concern about questioning in some way the actions of the Justice Ministry, prosecutors and police. What would be legitimate and healthy would be a counterpoint, or, in other words, commentary and repercussions that explain the police action.
The lack of balance began on the newspapers front page, with the publication of excerpts of columns by Danuza Leo and Gilberto Dimenstein, The jet set is almost in mourning and Euphoria about arrest focuses on wrong target. And it continued internally with repercussions (Executives fear abuse by federal police, So Paulo Bar Association has reservations about federal police operation toward Daslu, Clients see owner of Daslu as victimand ACM [Sen. Antonio Carlos Magalhaes] cries and defends executive), plus a story of support that seems to justify the crimes mentioned by prosecutors: Tax chaos in nation causes irregularities.
I pointed out these problems in my internal critique on Thursday: Facing so much testimony and commentary criticizing the arrest of Daslus owner, the newspaper could have published at least a small story defending or explaining the federal police action.
Fridays edition was more balanced. It began with the newspapers editorial, Operation Narcissism, which recognized that the federal police operation at Daslu is justifiable while conducted with needless confusion.
Journalistic coverage shows that the company has been investigated since 2003 by federal authorities and audited by tax officials since the beginning of this year.
The repercussion was, finally, balanced. There was space for questions (Industrial chamber proposes act against arbitrariness and (So Paulo Mayor Jos) Serra sees arrest of Tranchesi as exaggerated) and for the justifications (Federal police reject criticism and deny abuse against Daslu and Entity wants unequal justice, judge says, a response to criticism by the industrial chamber.
And three columnists at the newspaper weighed in. Different from Thursday, they defended distinct viewpoints. Lus Nassif saw evidence of a crime (The Daslu scheme), Eliane Cantanhde related police action to the political crisis in the administration (Federal police against congressional investigation) and Barbara Gancia made a frontal attack on the administration (Daslu or Daslula?), a pun on the name of President Luiz Incio Lula da Silva.
They are controversial and divergent columns, as the editorial project calls for, but is not always applied. The Daslu case will be going on for quite a while. A symbol of luxury in So Paulo and blessed by Gov. Geraldo Alckmin of the centrist Brazilian Social Democracy Party (PSDB), the megastore is now definitively associated with the Lula era and the absurdity that has taken over the country. It wont be easy to report on it.
In favor of animals
The champion of reader messages this week was neither the bribery scandal nor Daslu. The editorial Animal rights, published Monday, provoked the ire of 20 readers who criticized harshly the defense that the newspaper made for the use of animals in scientific studies in some circumstances.
The editorial was produced after publication of a story, on July 6 in the science section, Using animals in research is barbaric, says historian, in which two academics debated the topic. Nicolau Sevcenko, the historian, said that now there are alternatives to the use of animals. Science today provides complex software that models the organism. It is also possible to use material from dead animals in a natural way, but frozen for efficiency of the study.
Biologist Dolores Rivero has another opinion: To make medical advances, tests with animals are indispensable. Gains in knowledge are brutal. You cant expose a person to a pollutant such as carbon monoxide. They will faint and could die.
All the readers who wrote against the newspapers editorial agreed with Sevcenkos viewpoint. Many messages were similar, which could indicate a campaign. But this doesnt matter much. That fact is that the controversial topic is far from being exhausted.
What made those readers the most uncomfortable was the dry tone and lack of colorful expressions in the editorial. The text began in a provocative way, as an opinionated piece should do. Nature is cruel: It is a universal law that can be deduced from simple observation of ecological relations between species and individuals. Recognizing this fact should be a prerequisite for defenders of animal rights. Unfortunately, it is not, and frequently romantic notions arise with the demand to utilize animals in research and education.
Some readers reacted emotionally and disqualified the newspapers editorial. Others, meanwhile, questioned Folhas position with arguments and information that countered the idea that it is impossible to advance in research without sacrificing animals. I sent all the messages to the editors of the opinion section and asked for a comment from editor Marcos Augusto Gonalves, which I reproduce:
Folha has nothing against animals. The editorial only sought to introduce a dose of realism in the debate about the use of animals for science and in medical education. As for the former, there are circumstances in which it is impossible to give up using guinea pigs. Toxicity of a new drug, for example, needs to be tested on animals before being given to humans. As for medical education, the editorial itself asserts that it would be desirable to substitute animals with simulators, but this technology still needs to be improved and less expensive before it can be used at Brazilian medical schools.
The newspaper should take into account information from those who believe that it is possible today to give up on the use of animals in research and in teaching and produce a story that digs deep into the topic and helps to understand it. It is a big topic that is little explored.
Translation by John Wright
