Motivated by the Internet and telephone, the participation of readers is transforming journalistic work. This pressure is here to stay, and that is good
This last column as ombudsman is dedicated to Folha readers who insistently sought the intermediation of this listener over the past three years to demand more quality and balance from the newspaper, for showing their viewpoints and to suggest topics for opinion pieces and news stories. There were 7,286 messages in 2004, the first year of my mandate, and 13,280 in 2006, 82 0rowth during a period in which circulation at the newspaper stagnated.
Because it is impossible to hear from all of them, I asked the 10 most assiduous readers to send me a list of the points that they like most about Folha and the ones that bother them the most.
Professor Doralice Arajo of Curitiba was the one who wrote most over these three years, with 110 messages. Besides her, I asked for the opinions of modern artist Maria Gilka of So Paulo, professors Jos Augusto Lisboa of So Paulo and Carlos Brisola Marcondes of Florianpolis, banker Pedro Eugnio Beneduzzi Leite of Braslia, educator Mrcia Meireles of So Paulo, commercial representative Adilson Minossi de Oliveira of Florianpolis, writer Sylvia Manzano of So Paulo, Celso Balloti of So Paulo and accountant Ney Jos Pereira of So Paulo.
Criticism and praise
The role of complaints was bigger than praise. Two readers were exclusively critical, Pereira and Balloti. Pereira was the first reader with whom I spoke on the eve of assuming the job as ombudsman. I asked if he had confidence in the press, and I used his response in the first column (“Press, crises and challenges, April 11, 2004). “I have confidence but remain skeptical about the outcome.” Now, he responded in a succinct way that was more pleasing to Folha: “Nothing.”
Among the 10 commentaries that I received, four believed that the newspaper is against the governing Workers Party (PT) and favors the Brazilian Social Democracy Party (PSDB). “I am uncomfortable with the eternal anti-PT bias, the eternal negative bias in everything about the PT and President Luiz Incio Lula da Silva,” said Lisboa. Balloti’s question goes in the same direction: “Assuming … that treatment given to PT members is correct, why has there not been the same carnival atmosphere about the many and no less-serious scandals of the former PSDB administration?” Meireles believes “the lack of balance in coverage between the PT and PSDB administrations and those of other parties is obvious.” Manzano highlighted the diversity of topics with which Folha deals but believes that the newspaper “wants at all costs to disqualify President Lula.”
Pereira believes that the newspaper is “ambiguous”: “Folha is not pluralistic.” Beneduzzi Leite believes that the newspaper is pluralistic in its opinions but feels discomfort with the fact “that Folha does not make it clear in editorials which candidate it supports in the elections.” Even in relation to editorial positions, Marcondes praises “the pluralism of topics” covered, “the depth with which they are dealing and honesty,” but is said to be discomforted “by a certain bias against public servants and excessive sympathy for privatization.”
Almost all of them complain about the little space that readers have in the newspaper. Meireles believes that Letters to the Editor “is very small.” Arajo points out the presence of “well-known readers”to the detriment of “common readers,” the same complaint as Pereira (“Letters to the Editor is not for readers, but the more-than-readers”) and Oliveira (“the space destined to readers is used by big shots … and the lack of space for those who in fact sustain the newspaper”). And Lisboa considers it “tendentious.”
Meireles explained that she chooses Folha daily for the question: “assemblage”: she believes the role of the ombudsman is important (four other readers highlighted the newspaper’s initiative), believes that there is pluralism in opinions and that the newspaper seeks balance (“this chimera”) in political coverage, likes the graphic project, the crushing editorials and the public debates that the newspaper promotes but feels uncomfortable with “the difficulty (of Folha) to admit mistakes,” and deals with criticism “in an arrogant tone.”
The other complaints are precise: “captions are badly done” and “the futile topics on Sunday” (Arajo), “information without sources” (Lisboa) and Letters to the Editor “full of gossip and trial balloons” (Beneduzzi Leite), a full page of advertising on the front page of the arts and entertainment section (Meireles), some columnists (Oliveira), “scandalous, obscene photos” and “the apology for drugs in the arts and entertainment section and Mais! magazine (Gilka).
Among the positive points, besides those already quoted, are the newspaper’s editorial project and informative quality (Arajo), diagrams and comics (Lisboa), the op-ed section (Beneduzzi Leite), stories about accusations and the science section (Oliveira) and correction of mistakes (Gilka).
The future
Motivated by the ease of the Internet and telephone, the growing participation of readers is transforming journalistic production. It is no longer possible to perform journalism as we understood it one or two decades ago, as the only source. Readers have more information, are more prepared to question and have channels that facilitate intervention.
The difficulties that newspapers have at understanding and confronting the transformations that interfere with their performance are obvious. In my first column, I described that the mandate began amid the biggest crisis in the history of news organizations. I leave the job without that crisis being overcome and without the leap in quality for which I hoped and desired being accomplished.
They are conscious that they must change but still don’t have clarity of direction. The impression I have in these three years of observation is that the companies have their complete focus on the business side and the discussion about content in the newspaper stopped being a priority with the weakening of newsrooms. But newsrooms will have to come up with a solution.
It is a fact that newspapers lost a big share of the advertising pie. In 1996, they had 25.640f the total advertising revenues among the news media. TV had 60.13%. Last year TV continued at the same level (59.37%) while newspapers fell to 15.46% – the lowest level since the Inter-Media Project in the magazine “Medium & Message” began the surveys.
Thus justifies strong action to recover the market. But newspapers’ main asset continues to be credibility of their newsrooms which is associated with confidence in the information and analysis (quality) and balance in coverage (pluralism and non-partisanship).
We might as well get used to it: pressure by readers is here to stay, and that is good. New times demand stronger news organizations, more transparency, more opening for society, better accounting and more social responsibility.
Indispensable support
The work of the ombudsman depends on support from various areas of the newspaper. I am grateful to all who facilitate the work: Rosngela Pimentel and Ricardo Perrota (assistants); Ana Estela de Sousa Pinto, Rogrio Ortega, Benedito Carlos de Almeida, and Wayne Fernandes (training and quality); Paulo Ramos and Thas Nicoleti de Camargo (Portuguese language consultant); Carlos Henrique Kaufmann, Flora Pereira, Danilo Alves and Daniel Tremel (archives); Fbio Marra (art), Carvall e Osvaldo (illustrators), John Wright and Claudia Strauch (translators); Mauricio Puls and Paula Lago (editors in the national news section), Alba Bruna Campanerut and Suzana Singer (managing editor). I wish the best of luck to the new ombudsman, Mrio Magalhes.
Translation by John Wright
