We will know later if the commitment by the media to values such as lack of bias, impartiality and non-partisanship is real or only marketing
There is a lot of confusion in the air. The Globo TV network put out a double-page advertisement in which it promised “impartiality, transparency and a commitment to the truth.” The headline of the advertisement purposely reproduced an electoral clich, “I promise.” The Bandeirantes TV network responded with another advertisement: “They promise. We deliver.”
Globo advertised that it “will have the best-ever journalistic coverage of an election in Brazil.” According to the advertisement, the network will mobilize more than 4,500 people around the country to “show the news firsthand, stimulate debate and bring Brazil to your home with special reports.” Bandeirantes told about various political events starting in 1979 in which it considers that it had better coverage than “them” (referring to Globo but not saying explicitly in the ad) and finally, it was quite succinct: it promised to have “the most precise and impartial coverage on Brazilian TV.”
It is a mistake to imagine that the two networks, with viewers and earnings separated by an abyss, are only competing for audience with these advertisements. The main objective is competition for the richest journalism, credibility. For this reason, both were using buzz words such as lack of bias, transparency, truth, precision and impartiality. That shows a big problem at news organizations, and not only in Brazil.
It does not advance the amount of information available, it does not advance the work of journalists, it does not advance the commercial leadership without credibility. And there is no better opportunity to try to form an image of credibility than during the electoral campaign or during coverage of political crises.
Rules of conduct
Those two networks are not the only ones to take advantage of the political and electoral moment to form a positive image through institutional or commercial announcements. The Rio daily “O Globo” a month ago published an announcement to release its “Statute of 2006 Elections,” with internal rules that should be followed by their staff to provide information that is “unbiased and transparent.” The text of the statute had already been published as news a week earlier.
Folha is selling subscriptions with pieces that make direct reference to politics: “A newspaper must have a lot of credibility in a country in which so many things happen that are difficult to believe” and “They try to sweep the mess under the rug, and people put it on the doormat.”
TV Globo also created, as did “O Globo” newspaper, internal rules that should be followed by employees, and there are two chapters directed toward employees at the Globo Journalism Center. They are guidelines that intend to guarantee “impartiality” and “editorial balance” of coverage. Even the Radiobrs public radio network put out a “protocol for commitment to citizens” and a “code of conduct” during the electoral period.
Good coverage
The publicity announcements with promises for unbiased coverage and publication of rules of behavior for newsrooms are a good sign, independent of the commercial objectives that are behind them. We will find out later if the public commitment with values such as lack of bias, impartiality, non-partisanship and pluralism are real or just marketing. And also important, we will see later if the mega-coverage announced has quality and critical sense, if it in fact lives up to the responsibility to inform well and help to form citizens with their own opinions.
What we have seen at the start of the electoral campaign – mainly on the TV news, but not only there – is superficial coverage, dependent on the agendas of candidates without context. There is a restless society that still has not appeared on TV screens nor on newspaper pages.
It is probable that, as the campaign develops, news organizations get around to the history of the candidates, evaluate their public administrations, analyze the failures and successes of public policies implemented in recent years, deepen the discussions about the main national problems and confront the programs and promises of candidates for president and state governors.
That is what is expected, such as how an innovative look is expected for coverage that is always neglected, of the legislature (Senate, Chamber of Deputies and state assemblies). Good coverage will not be evaluated by the distance traveled, the number of journalists involved or the volume of paper printed. This is what we are waiting for.
The media’s duty
At the beginning of the week, I participated in a seminar about “media accountability systems” (MAS). They are initiatives that journalists, news organizations and society – and not governments – created in the 20th Century and continue to create to guarantee responsibility by the press to be accountable to the public.
A MAS, as defined by Claude-Jean Bertrand in the Brazilian edition of his book, “The Arsenal of Democracy” (Edusc), “is any means of inciting the media to adequately fulfill its role.” He indicates “clearly to the public to that journalists have principles and rules, that they are concerned about discovering the necessities and desires of their readers/listeners/viewers and, finally, that they are ready to provide a service, to recognize their faults.”
The statutes created by TV Globo, “O Globo” newspaper and Radiobrs for elections can be seen, as defined by Bertrand, as “peaceful weapons” capable of “guaranteeing at the same time liberty and excellence in news media.” The codes of ethics, the stylebooks, the role of the ombudsman, reader councils, the regular publication of corrections and self-criticism are other weapons, among more than 60, in this arsenal.
Brazil’s problem is that few news organizations adopt these systems of transparency, correction, integration (with readers, listeners and viewers) and public accountability. Most of them still have not assimilated that they are private companies but offer a public service.
Translation by John Wright
