There is no guarantee that the proposal for state-run TV will survive, but it has the merit to give rise to the desired discussion about the model of communication and the press that is wanted
Communications Minister Hlio Costa of the centrist Brazilian Democratic Movement Party (PMDB) announced Monday that he presented to President Luiz Inco Lula da Silva a project to create a national public television network. Folha did not report it. In “O Estado de So Paulo” it was the headline – “New public TV network will cost 250 million reals.” I pointed out Folha’s omission in my internal critique with the understanding that, while the topic could awaken little interest most readers, it is important because it has something to do with the model of democracy that the country is building.
Stuck discussion
According to “Estado,” “together with the system of digital TV (being installed) and the national public TV network, the government is studying the so-called plan for democratization of the news media which mainly involves a fine comb in the concessions for radio and TV stations and is being studied by three sectors of the government.”
Folha recovered on Wednesday and published a page and a half with three headlines that summarized the newspaper’s focus: “Government defends state TV to ‘show its ideas,’” “For members of Congress, proposal needs ‘big debate’” and “Project reflects state desire to equip, says entity (referring to the position of the Brazilian Association of Public, Educational and Cultural Broadcasters).” On Friday, it returned to the topic in an interview with the new Justice Minister, Tarso Genro, which defended the creation of a network with the argument of the necessity to guarantee freedom of “circulation of opinion.” And yesterday it carried information that the state network could cost more than 500 million reals.
“Estado” ran an editorial against the initiative, but it made space for explanatory pieces about a complicated topic as well as the confrontation of opinions. Folha had not shown its opinion through the day before yesterday and had not expected to do so this weekend while it is certain that it will also criticize the project.
It seems clear that the government confuses the proposal for a public network (at the service of society and independent from the different administrations, such as England’s BBC) with state media (or state ownership). I don’t have any sympathy for the minister’s proposal and I think it will have a hard time succeeding, but it has the merit to give rise to the discussion about the model of communication that is wanted in this country.
The discussion is stuck, with more opinion than information, restricted now to universities, class associations and press observatories that get little welcome in the news media.
Prickly topics
For this reason, I consider the study “Media and Public Communication Policy” recently released by the News Agency for the Rights of Children (Andi) to be important: www.andi.org.br/midia-pcc.pdf). Andi, today one of the most important institutions that observes the behavior of Brazilian newspapers, analyzed how the press covers itself and the result is not among the best.
It studied 1,184 pieces published in 53 newspapers in all Brazilian states and four weekly newspapers between 2003 and 2005. It did not include 2006, when the behavior of the press during the elections was more discussed than the candidates’ programs.
The study asked: “Could it be that the Brazilian press, while one of the guardians of democracy, ended up making a stand in an objective way with questions related to its own obligations and responsibilities? In what way and which measure do organizations in the sector inform their public about the topics referring to the world of media?”
Andi’s conclusions: “The data … denote that the Brazilian media are used to speaking about themselves in a selective way, leaving behind the prickly topics, while the central relevance for the development of contemporary democracy … the example … allows identification that global coverage of the most different topics associated with communications is very much apart from the relevance of the media institution for democratic regimes.”
Coverage is irregular and is concentrated. Only seven out of 57 news organizations analyzed are responsible for 350f the stories published. Among the seven, three were highlighted: “Carta Capital” (11.10f the stories about the media came out in the magazine), “Estado” (7.8%), and Folha (6.8%). In this period “Estado” published half of the 30 articles per month while Folha published 26. Newspapers in the North, Northeast and West-Central, where a large number are in the hands of political groups, practically ignored the discussions about the press.
And when newspapers and magazines decide to deal with a topic, they refer mainly to television (590f pieces analyzed and these do not include gossipy stories or program guides), while the written press is responsible for only 18.60f the stories, the same as radio.
Discussions about the role of news media, about the press and democracy, concentration of ownership in the hands of a few companies, concentration of audience and advertising in a few organizations and groups, regulation and self-regulation and other thorny topics (for the press) get almost no space.
Another conclusion of the study: civil society is not involved in the discussion. Stories have two main actors: news organizations and the government. That explains the extreme polarization that dominates the debates. The sources contacted confirm the lack of participation in society but still indicate better equilibrium than other similar surveys: 18% were executive, 15ompanies and business associations, 120niversities and research centers, 11 0.000000e+00gislative and judiciary and 5% representatives of non-government organizations, unions and social movements.
There was coverage, however, in which equilibrium disappeared completely. In discussion about the Federal Journalism Council in 2004, 640f the pieces only carried positions against the project by the government and the National Federation of Journalists, and only 4.50ffered in the same piece opinions for and against. In that coverage, 150f the items had as a source news organizations and their associations, while 2.2 0ave space to the information from unions and journalists’ federations.
Necessary debate
Enough of statistics. The point is that, in my opinion, news organizations were mistaken in repressing a discussion that grows daily and will be uncontrollable. By not paying attention to the importance of the debate involved, it loses confidence and credibility. The best thing to do is to confront the discussion and questions with professionalism and honesty, informing, expounding clearly the positions about each of the topics and giving an equal amount of space to the dozens of other positions that exist in society and are dissatisfied with the current model. While the discussion was not wide, it will always be polarized between media organizations and the government, and always will be irrational. Guaranteeing space for the discussion is one of the responsibilities of journalism.
Passage
“The data … show that Brazilian media are used to speaking about themselves in a selective way, leaving behind thorny topics, giving central relevance to the development of contemporary democracy.”
Translation by John Wright
