Former So Paulo Gov. Geraldo Alckmin, now the presidential candidate for the centrist Brazilian Social Democracy Party (PSDB), made a comment Monday that indirectly questioned the press. When evaluating various news events that have arisen in recent days (savings bank Nossa Caixa, his wife’s wardrobe, acupuncturists), he attributed the accusations to his political adversaries and made the following observation: “What is interesting is that all of this only came up after I became a presidential candidate. This is something totally opportunistic.”
The former governor has a point in what he says about the press. Not in the sense that it should not expose these matters now, but in the sense of what it reveals about news organizations. Why did these accusations not arise before, during his gubernatorial term? The answer is simple: the newspapers covered his administration badly. The main focus over the past three years has been on Braslia, the presidential administration and Congress.
As for Alckmin, I collected data that support my evaluation. Transparency Brazil has archives (www.deuno.jornal.org.br) with stories about fraud and irregularities collected daily in 63 newspapers and magazines since January 2004. The absolute majority of stories is about accusations, one or another deals with projects and policies to combat corruption. Alckmin was practically ignored in 2004 and 2005. In 2004, Folha ran 33 stories, “O Estado de So Paulo” had 34, and the Rio daily “O Globo” ran 15 which, for better or worse, mentioned the former governor. In 2005, there were, respectively, 53, 49 and 14. Up to April 11, 2006, Folha already published 45 stories, “Estado” had 35 and “Globo” ran 41.
One of the accusations against Alckmin is that throughout his term, his parliamentary supporters impeded the creation of investigations by the state legislature. With the help of Folha’s archives, I found only 10 stories published by the newspaper over three years (2003 to 2005) with information about the topic.
Furthermore, newspapers in general, and not just the big ones, cover governors, state legislatures and mayor’s offices poorly, even in states and capitals where they are headquartered. It gives the sensation of opportunism when they decide to do their work.
The press and the congressional investigation
Last Sunday, I began an accounting of the press’ behavior in the coverage of the congressional investigation into the post office scandal over the past 10 months of political crisis. Did it fulfill its expected role in a democracy? I sent the same question to various press observers and journalists involved in the coverage. Last week I published analyses by three political scientists. Today I am running evaluations by a professor of journalism ethics and editors of two newspapers.
“Journalism, in any form, remains based on its main pillar, showing people what can affect them in their daily lives and what they can know, choose and get involved in. Journalism remains a way to rapidly know facts and versions, data and interpretations, because the timetable is daily. Events and decisions in the field of political and economic power immediately reflect the lives of citizens. When journalism stops doing this, it is lesser journalism or worse journalism.
“In the case of the so-called ‘allowances’ (bribes in exchange for political support), coverage fulfilled the role of telling about and investigating public power and its ramifications that compromise the purpose of the republic and turn citizens into lesser citizens. This should be done in any circumstances, during any administration.
“But, did it adequately fulfill its role? We have to look at it case by case. Overall, the coverage seems satisfactory to me, but there have been excesses. The principle of checking, of diversity of sources, of well-done research, sometimes made space for journalism packaged for economic or ideological public interest. It lacked journalism.
“It is important that the press not repeat the mistakes that occurred in the cases of Alceni Guerra and Ibsen Pinheiro. The losses suffered by those accused are big, and society is driven to mistaken judgments about people and situations. Sometimes it takes five to 10 days to correct a mistake, a self-criticism without the same repercussion of the initial accusation.
“As a positive aspect, insistent investigative journalism is intensified. It seeks depth, the confrontation between versions and documentary data that is not content with a declaration. Most of the news organizations follow this route. As a negative aspect, journalistic limits in some cases have been exceeded in instances of accusations without proof, like the treatment of suspects as guilty and the portrayal of statements and facts.”
“This is the first big congressional investigation in real time in Congress. This brought more agility to coverage in relation to the rhythm of previous investigations but also raised the challenge, not always surpassing the daily reporting in newspapers that go beyond the news in blogs and nightly TV news. In the economic daily ‘Valor Econmico,’ whose editorial policy is scheduled by the search for deeper information, this demand is conspicuous. The limits of its coverage in large part reflects the investigation that the press itself in general was not able to make, such as the incomplete detailing of private resources benefitting from corruption in state-owned companies. On the days in which the congressional investigation and federal prosecutors revealed their conclusions, closing the first step in the investigation, the opinion polls showed that most of the population knew about the scandal, but coverage was already saturated. The circulation of newspapers grew in 2005 when the commissions were at their peak of public exposure. This shows that the crisis awakened the attention of readers. If this interest dissipates, it is also because the press has debts to pay. The main one perhaps would be to show how these long and exhaustive months of investigation will improve the lives of Brazilians.”
“The biggest criticism of the work by the press will always be about what we did not do before the start of the congressional investigation into the post office scandal during the first two years of President Luiz Incio Lula da Silva’s administration. We were taken by surprise by revelations that got the ‘allowances’ scandal rolling. Not even in the Waldomiro matter was it able to warn about the gravity of what was starting. We delayed in finding our own way through tangled information and political interests in play. We did not compromise independence in any of our principles, but we initially get dragged into the fratricidal war that took over the government, one of the distinctive features of this crisis. After passing this phase, we returned to do what democracy demands of us: investigating, revealing and debating in depth the facts and versions presented.
“In what it says about ‘O Globo’ it is worth pointing out four instances in the coverage, as much as their influence in the direction of investigations and the ethical values in question. In July, we reported exclusively that the PSDB in the state of Minas Gerais used the same method (slush funds) and the same operator (Marcos Valrio) in the 1998 campaign. Another case was the revelation that phone company Telemar invested 5 million reals (the equivalent of US $2.3 million) to create a company with one of Lula’s children. Distinct from other news organizations, it only reported the list of power company Furnas when it was used politically in the congressional investigation. And in the breaking of bank secrecy laws involving household employee Francenildo Costa, ‘O Globo’ was the first to warn about the illegality of the step. (Finance Minister Antnio) Palocci fell and the moral crisis of the Lula administration today has taken on the dimensions of this most recent crime.”
Translated by John Wright
