The Base School scandal buried the idea that it is sufficient to attribute information to authorities. The press also has responsibility.
It is hard to imagine a more dramatic case. On the day her one-year, three-month-old daughter Victria, died on Oct. 29, Daniele Toledo do Prado, 21, was arrested by the police in Taubat (So Paulo), accused of killing her baby with a dose of cocaine mixed in her bottle. Victria, according to information in Folha, had cerebral vasculitis from an undetermined cause. Her arrest was based on a preliminary report that detected the presence of drugs.
The horrors that Daniele experienced began three weeks before the death of her daughter, when she was raped in the hospital in Taubat, where she was seeking assistance, and was prolonged by her time in prison, when she was beaten by 19 inmates in the Pindamonhangaba jail. “Her jaw was broken, a pen was jammed into her right ear and her head was beaten against the bars,” Folha reported.
Last Tuesday, Daniele was released. The final report on the material collected showed no traces of cocaine. The case did not end there because through Friday, the cause of death had not been released. But the life of this young woman has been shaken irreversibly.
The press
Folha on Thursday published a letter from lawyer Mrio Henrique Dittico, which analyzed the case and assigned blame for the tragedy which Daniele suffered due to the police, prosecutors, the justice system, the hospital and the press: “Once again the results of the combination of a shocked society that ignores the most basic democratic principles, a failed system of persecution by authorities and a press concerned most of all to cash in on the tragedies of others, was explosive … The government and the press practically destroyed the life of another innocent person.”
Newspapers dealt with the case in different ways. Folha decided not to publish anything about the accusation and arrest. The first story came out on Wednesday with the news that the definitive report found no cocaine and that Daniele had been released. The focus was on the drama she experienced.
“O Estado de So Paulo” and the Rio daily “O Globo” reported the accusation by police and identified the mother but did not give it a lot of play. “Agora,” published by the Folha Group, followed the case with stories starting Oct. 30, but did not reveal the mother’s name, identifying her only when she was released. “Dirio de So Paulo” was the one that gave it the most play, identifying the mother and publishing photos of her. There is a difference, however, between the behavior of Folha and “Dirio.”
Base School
This story has many similarities to the Base School case in 1994. The two episodes had formal accusations (by mothers in 1994; by doctors now), the two had preliminary reports which lent some credibility to the accusations and in both, police authorities publicly made complaints against the accused.
But the Base School buried the idea that it is sufficient to attribute the information to an authority or take precautions such as the use of conditional verbs. The press also bears responsibility. These are not simple cases for the newspapers because, while they involve ordinary people, they could, if proved to be crimes, have social interest. It was a case, for example of sexual abuse of children. The problem is to avoid sensationalism and to guarantee, until final proof, the right to the presumption of innocence.
There are two ways to do it, and both require courage: don’t publish anything until you obtain secure information or publish the information without identifying the accused. Reader Mrio Henrique Dittico suggests that newspapers report exhaustively in their stories that the accused are innocent until proven to the contrary. That’s an idea.
In theory, the journalistic procedures of checking were followed now and in the Base School – there is a formal accusation, “proof” (the reports) and the word of the police – except for a fundamental detail: the victims were not contacted. In the case of the Base School, when they were, their stories were discarded. This time, the side of the young woman was given only when she was released from jail, a month after the death of her daughter.
Equal criteria
Reader Dbora Lcia Martins was not satisfied with Folha’s coverage. She did not understand why the doctor who raised the suspicion of cocaine and the resident accused of raping Daniele were not identified. “Why were their names and photos not used by the newspaper? If a poor person is accused of committing some crime, her photo and complete name are used in any story or brief note. Now, when those implicated are doctors or police, who in the opinion of journalists are “qualified” people, they are saved from the discomfort of public exposure.”
I agree that there can’t be two criteria. I disagree, however, that the rule should involve dragging everyone through the mud in public. This case is still very confusing, and the mistake committed concerning Daniele doesn’t justify further errors.
There is a rule that one part of the Brazilian press has already adopted but is not always respected: you can’t always believe the police. It’s not enough to have the accusation of a police official, it’s not enough to have a preliminary report, it’s not enough to have a formal accusation. The archives of big newspapers have dozens of examples of irresponsibility by the police and the press.
OTHER VIEW
“Investigative work”
In the case of the Base School, all the newspapers except what was then “Dirio Popular,” gave a lot of space to the accusations by police and sensationalistic treatment in general. “Dirio Popular” got the information firsthand and decided not to publish it by realizing that the story was badly told and incomplete. It was right.
In the case of Daniele, one newspaper gave the case a lot of play, with a photo and identifying the mother, by coincidence, it was the same “Dirio,” now “de So Paulo.” It was wrong in my opinion. That is not the feeling, however, of Bruno Thys, managing editor of the newspaper. These are his comments:
“Dirio showed its value by doing investigative work, which resulted in the discovery of an absurd mistake. The name of the mother was not omitted because it was given publicly, through technical evidence and a witness. In order: the suspect was arrested based on a police report saying that the white powder was cocaine, and the Health Secretary in Taubat, Pedro Silveira, asserted that the baby’s brain was corroded by the drug. Daniele was accused by prosecutor Joo Carlos Maia of homicide, and she was also accused by other legal authorities. The Brazilian press does not have clear rules regarding protecting the names of suspects. Strictly speaking, a person is considered guilty when a trial makes that determination. The attention of reporter Cristina Christiano was awoken to the possibility of error when writing a profile of the mother. In the case of Daniele, she saw embroidered clothing and details that revealed zeal, not disregard for being a mother. Oriented by editor Dcio Trujilo, Cristina sought a toxicologist and was categorical: the symptoms (low pressure and temperature, slow heartbeats and sleep) were not those an overdose but someone who took anti-depressants, in other words, phenobarbital, which Victria really was using. The reporter collected information in laboratories and from a toxicology professor at the University of So Paulo who asserted: the exam (blue test) done that day in the jail could have shown a false result. On Nov. 10 – 15 days before the result in the official report – Cristina had a story carrying the hypothesis of error, showing the incoherence in Victria’s symptoms and those of an overdose, sufficient elements to assert that Daniela was a victim.”
Translation by John Wright
