Some newspapers devoted special editions to the first anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks: Folha and the Rio daily O Globo on Sunday and O Estado de So Paulo on Wednesday.
The section in Folha (12 pages), with nothing new from the journalistic investigation into the attacks, gave priority to analyses and examinations by sector (geopolitical, cultural and economic).
These editions were highlighted by a certain timidity in their critical approach regarding the United States (security failures, curtailments of individual liberties or human rights in the name of the war against terrorism, for example) and a lack of reporting of the news outside of the U.S./European axis, especially in Arab countries.
It calls attention to the imbalance now, principally when compared with editions of Folha about the same events last year, characterized together and in their continuity, for more balanced treatment toward the conflicting forces.
The special section in Globo (16 pages), with even more superficial treatment, mixed trends and illustrative stories. The one in Estado (12 pages) reproduced material from The New York Times (whose special section on Sept. 11 was 48 pages), with an approach that managed to bring together stories with a clearly patriotic tone (praise to New York and the thousands of dead) and others of a critical nature about the U.S. government.
In none of these cases, however, were there unprecedented revelations of a significant nature about the events themselves. Its as if a year later, at a time when President George W. Bush is trying to change Osama bin Laden for Saddam Hussein as enemy No. 1, the journalistic investigation into the destruction of the twin towers and about Al Qaeda, was still waiting for something.
Reality and fiction
What we saw new in the reporting were the images on TV, especially documentaries showing unprecedented scenes of terror. A highlight worth mentioning here is the impressionable filming by the French brothers Geodon and Jules Naudet with the title 9/11.
And it was in this area that Folha committed a blunder that was at least curious, showing how a lack of systematic checking of data could jeopardize services offered by the newspaper.
On Sunday, Folhas TV section announced that the Bandeirantes TV network would show at 10:15 p.m. on Sept. 11 The Day the Earth Stood Still, a science fiction movie made in 1951 by director Robert Wise.
Then, in the same edition was a story on another page about Sept. 11 events that would show, among others, the documentary The Day the Earth Stood Still, prepared by the same network for the same time slot under the direction of Roberto Cabrini.
That caused confusion: In the end, would the network show the movie or the documentary? There was a lack of clear information.
According to a report that I received in the newsroom, the list of films that would be shown between Sept. 9 and 15 sent by Bandeirantes consisted of the item Sept. 11 special The Day the Earth Stood Still, without further data.
The newsroom then, assumed that it was the classic film by Wise, which belongs to the networks archives, and included its synopsis in the TV listings, without realizing that at the same time there was a documentary called The Day the Earth Stood Still that would be shown.
Repetition
The confusion in a single edition which didnt merit get a single correction was repeated three days later in the listing in the arts and entertainment section. The same two contradictory pieces of information were now side by side, and the Wise film now got a full review: a synopsis of the plot, names of the cast and even a rating (three stars).
All this came while at least one competitor (O Estado de So Paulo) published the correction information from the start, both Sunday and Wednesday.
After reading Folha on Sept. 11, anyone who followed the TV networks programming that night and saw on the screen the documentary presented by Cabrini not Wises science fiction movie had a right to feel ridiculed.
Whatever the explanation for the blunder, its difficult to placate the indignation of a reader in Presidente Prudente (So Paulo state) who summed it up in an e-mail: I promised that the last one would be my final message, but I could not resist one more Homeric jab at the TV section … And silly me, relying on Folha, I waited for the film to be shown so I could record it. How ridiculous!
Privileges
Last Thursday, dozens of journalists nationwide received the same e-mail: Dear journalist, Suzuki of Brazil has a special sale for you. Until Sept. 30, members of the media all over Brazil who want to buy a brand new 2002 car will get a special discount. Look in the table below at the available models and the amount of savings. If you are interested, get in touch with us. We will send more information so you too can get a Suzuki. In the table were five models, with discounts from 13.5% to 16.4%.
Discounts for journalists didnt start today. In the middle of the past century, this was even expected institutionally (exemptions from taxes, for example). The chance to buy cars with attractive discounts spread through newsrooms during the 1980s. Similar attractions never really stopped.
I talked to the public relations spokeswoman for Suzuki, Rosa Arrais. She said that her goal with the sale was only to bring the company closer to the press in a friendly and transparent way, with no ulterior motives.
Whats important here are not the goals or methods of the company, but the fact that the absurdity of privileges for journalists in the marketplace is considered natural. Given the growing economic strength of information, what could be the meaning of this?
Wouldnt it be the same logic that considers it normal to try to avoid fines for traffic tickets by use of some privilege? That way, like the highway patrol giving tickets to drivers, you cant assert that all journalists will necessarily distort contents in their stories in favor of some company that tries to bestow special favors.
But Im not attempting here to deal with only questions of personal morality. Journalist Eugnio Bucci, in the book About Ethics and the Press, argues:
The problem is not what he (the journalist) thinks himself and the fact that he swears that he will continue to be impartial even while enjoying so much generosity from others. The problem is that this is how his independence stops being explicit. Then appearances arise suggesting that, while not explicit, maybe it wont be so genuine.
The question of privileges for journalists, for those who expect critical, independent journalism, surpasses the limits of individuality. It should be seen as something formal, in the structure of the profession, Bucci explained.
Its no coincidence that stylebooks, such as Folhas, have passages and principles that restrict the practice.
What is hard to understand is how, even today and despite changes in manners, spectacular offers continue to be made and it is known that a large number of them are accepted even by e-mail.
