Approval of the final report by the congressional investigation into the post office scandal on Wednesday is a good pretext to start an evaluation of work by the press in coverage over the past 10 months of investigations and political crisis. During this period, I made various critiques of newspapers, in particular Folha. Today I will publish evaluations that I solicited from some observers of the political environment and behavior of the press, and I will continue to do so in upcoming columns. I am starting with three political scientists.
I sent them four questions to answer: How do you judge press coverage of the revelations about corruption in the administration of President Luiz Incio Lula da Silva and the Congress? Did it fulfill the role that you expect of it in a democracy? What positive points highlight coverage? And negative ones? Here are the responses:
PRESSURE GROUPS
Wanderley Guilherme dos Santos, political scientist and rector at Cndido Mendes University
“Journalism is one of the activities of news organizations. They also act like business corporations and political pressure groups. Following their economic and political interests, journalistic coverage in the press was highly positive in what it revealed, an accomplice in what it covered and cliquish in what it does not distort. As long as the press, as a journalistic entity, a company and political group, depends so much on the government, things will continue this way.”
DISAPPOINTMENT IN THE END
Jairo Nicolau, political scientist, pollster at the Rio de Janeiro University Polling Institute (Iuperj)
“Coverage by the press had its great moments, such as two interviews with Roberto Jefferson in Folha and some special stories in weekly magazines and the Globo TV network. But it is my impression that, in terms of putting out information, the stories often ran behind the blogs and live TV coverage, two strong competitors.
“My biggest disappointment was in coverage of the final report, probably overshadowed by the departure of Finance Minister (Antnio) Palocci the same week. I looked in the main newspapers and found modest summaries and very superficial analyses. Few people must have had the patience to read hundreds of pages in the report, but I believe that it presents a powerful portrait about how significant areas in the Brazilian government were dominated by corruption.”
FIRE ALARM
Fernando Luiz Abrucio, political scientist and professor at the Getlio Vargas Foundation and Pontifical Catholic University, both in So Paulo
“It is possible to analyze the role of the press in three aspects. First, it fulfills an excellent role as a fire alarm, following with details about revelations, underlying political conflicts in the crisis and results of the process, highlighted by good coverage about removals from office and acquittals.
“Second, the quality of the investigation done by the media was reasonable. Some journalistic scoops were poorly investigated, some revelations were lost over time, and, worst of all, nobody sought the possible recipients of monthly ‘allowances’ after the governing coalition won over more than 50 members of Congress overnight. There also was not more systematic and consistent criticism in the evidence gathered by congressional investigations, accepting as truth the topics that were poorly analyzed by the parliamentarians. Despite this, discoveries by the press were fundamental for the most useful lines of investigation, of the celebrated interview with Roberto Jefferson, continuing theft at Rural Bank, and finding stories in the weekly news magazines ‘Veja’ and ‘poca’ about Palocci’s lies.
“The biggest fault by the press involves analysis of the causes of the crisis. The press showed, in general, it was unprepared to inform readers about the origins of phenomena such as the banking scandal and the so-called ‘Valerioduta’ (in which public figures were investigated for benefitting from illegal schemes of using public resources for personal enrichment or political use).
“They should have discussed topics such as professionalization of public service, conflicts of interest involving most of the members of Congress, effects of state monopolies that favored the capture of public resources by private entities, and lack of preparation by members of Congress to carry out investigations.
“The main newspapers were found lacking when it comes to the way the congressional investigation into bingo games regularly circumvented laws and exceeded their constitutional limits. To recover ethical standards in this country, it is necessary to improve institutions and not create a climate of inquisition that transforms politics and investigation in the lives of citizens in which so much is at stake.
“In a final look at the congressional investigations, the press should show that the rules that permit the ‘valerioduto’ and similar situations to remain, leave a legacy of weak parliamentary investigation and abuse of congressional prerogatives.”
Journalists and journalists
Marcelo Netto, the former press adviser in the Finance Ministry, has not been proved to have participated in leaking the banking information about household employee Francenildo Costa. Nevertheless, his lawyer, Eduardo Toledo, put forth a defense with a controversial thesis. I will reproduce the story from Folha, published Thursday.
In an interview after Netto was taken by Federal Police, Toledo developed a rationale in which journalists carry out public functions by responding to the professional code of ethics. “Marcelo is a journalist, and journalists have the obligation to inform.”
I don’t know whether or not the former press adviser was involved and what kind of conspiracy existed against the household employee. But it is true that his lawyer, trying to create an ethical justification for the case in which he leaked the information, besides indirectly incriminating him, made a mistake and stirred up a hornet’s nest. Press advisers don’t have the same objectives, nor do they adhere to the same principles as journalists in news organizations.
Here are some questions. Should a journalist with the job of a press adviser work for the interests of his employer (whether a private company or public office) or stay committed to the job of “divulging all the facts that are in the public interest” (Code of Ethics for journalists), even those which are not in the interest of his employer? Should an adviser in a government office who has access to strategic information act as an adviser and preserve the confidentiality or should he act as a reporter and release the information? Is there ethical justification to leak information illegally to protect a minister under accusation?
To throw fuel on this fire, I copy a passage in the book “About Press Ethics” (Companhia das Letras) by journalist Eugnio Bucci, now the president of a public entity, Radiobrs.
“The press adviser is an artifice and at the same time a provider of a good image for his employer. In practice, he is not a journalist. A journalist is strictly a professional charged with getting news to the public, at a service he works for, in the end, beholden to the right of information and nobody else. A press adviser – even if he studied at the school of communications with training in journalism, even if he has years of experience in a newsroom – fulfills a technically different role. He has nothing to gain by asking what the public has a right to know, but he gains by propagating what his client (or employer) has an interest in putting out.
There are two occupations equally dignified, and there is nothing wrong with one or the other, but they are two different occupations. Sometimes they are opposed.”
Translated by John Wright
