The gunshot and the photograph
By Bernardo Ajzenberg
July 27, 2003
Much has been written about the topic that photography in journalism should not just be a supplementary element to the story, an image more or less well done so that the editor uses it to balance the page esthetically or, in many cases, simply to fill a hole. In practice, however, the occasions are rare in which photographs take on a life of their own, with intensity, relevance and even more serious repercussions than the story.
Indeed, this happened in Thursdays editions of Agora, a newspaper published by the Folha Group, and in Folha in its stories about the death of photographer Luis Antnio da Costa of the magazine poca. He was killed during a confrontation while covering the events of homeless people in Sao Bernardo do Campo, So Paulo state.
Credit here goes to photographer Andr Porto of Agora, who, applying his instincts, technique and journalistic skills in a singular, tumultuous and dramatic moment, recorded a man with a weapon in hand running away shortly after the shot that killed Costa. In the following days, we saw more: The sequence of photos allowed, in reality, to also identify suspects, such as what Folha published yesterday.
This column usually registers complaints by readers and points out or comments on errors in news reporting. I ask your permission on this occasion to make a small change, to give space to a summary of a statement by Porto, 30, with whom I spoke by telephone about his work:
It was all very instinctive and fast, but I also had to make a technical decision: I had a wide-angle lens which provides a very complete view, knew I had film and remembered that I did not have a flash. I then saw what I could and should do by recording it without thinking.
I lifted my camera and shot to get a sequence, without my eye in the viewfinder. If I had not done this right at that moment, I would never get another chance.
My legs shook a lot. I was not absolutely certain about all that I would capture at the moment. The chance to identify a probable killer appeared. The photo says much more than I knew at the moment I took it.
I had a reaction as a journalist but also as a citizen, to produce a valuable eyewitness account.
The situation is so terrible. I was unable to smile. Even now, I feel a little bit of shame by being happy about this, but it was the best that I could do at the time.
*
Folha had the credit in this coverage to put on the front page the photograph to which I refer, but in my opinion it committed a mistake also regarding photography. That was by not publishing, even on its inside pages, the photograph of Costa being carried by some people. The image was used in all the other newspapers.
Managing Editor Paula Cesarino Costa said that the image was shocking and without relevant information which would merit its publication.
What information did the picture of the photographers bleeding corpse add to the story which said the photographer was killed by a gunshot? the editor asked. She denied, on the other hand, the hypothesis that the decision came from some type of defensive attitude because the victim was a journalist. We would do things the same way if the victim were an engineer or architect.
The publication of a photograph like this is almost always controversial among journalists and readers and involves a certain degree of subjectivity.
I think that this image, while powerful and full of impact, did not qualify as sensationalism. It was shot from a distance; you dont see the face of the victim in it. On the other side, it adds visual information capable of enriching the story, transmitting it more clearly to readers with all the dramatics of the event and the moments immediately afterward without assaulting them.
Thats the way it would be, within the limits of what is publishable on an inside page in a newspaper such as Folha.
Ostrich syndrome
The opening of a play in a So Paulo theater last week caused a delicate question to arise that had already made some noise three years ago: the supposed existence of a love child by then-President Fernando Henrique Cardoso.
On that occasion, questioned why Folha did not report on the topic, the newspaper published (on April 11, 2000) two sequential pieces in a note to readers to explain its position.
In summary, the newspapers position was that this was a rumor without any confirmation by the newspaper from any involved party or willingness by them to make the case public. The topic should remain in the private sphere because it involved an 8-year-old child and there was no information by any public agency or complaint by any of the parties toward the other.
The piece concluded: The newspaper intends to maintain this position at least concerning material published (at the time by the magazine Caros Amigos) resulting in political consequences from its publication.
While recognizing that it is controversial, I agree with this position in theory. It just so happens that circumstances have caused the story to resurface now in another way, in the fictitious voice of Sen. Z Otvio, the principal character in the play A Flower for my Sweetheart written by Juca de Oliveira.
The phrase, reproduced in the daily newspaper Jornal da Tarde on Tuesday, July 22, was the following:
Lula (President Luiz Incio Lula da Silva) accepted responsibility for his love child and lost the election. He won at a later time because Brazilians have short memories. Bush is in power because of Monica Lewinsky. Cardoso himself had a son out of wedlock but he hid the fact and sent him to Spain with the woman so he would not lose the election.
What should we do, in journalistic terms?
On Friday, July 18, columnist Mnica Bergamo had a big scoop about politicians belonging to Cardosos Brazilian Social Democracy Party being so uncomfortable that they went see the play in a preview before its official debut. Besides making it clear that the topic involved the personal life of the ex-president, it did not explicitly mention what the senator said about the supposed child.
On Tuesday, July 22, when Jornal da Tarde published that phrase, a story in the arts and entertainment section about the play which was coming out the next day did not even mention the prickly phrase.
I dont know if the author hit the mark on purpose, with an eye on publicity that his play would get. That is another matter. That fact remains that it has required the newspaper to explain once again why it was not writing about the topic except in a tangential, indirect way, as it has done up to now.
Since I agree with the principle of the argument used in 2000, I believe that Folhas current position damages another of its main principles: transparency. Given the second wave of publicity about the affair, more noisy than the first, the newspaper needs to at least justify this deliberate omission (after three years) to its readers thousands of whom, it seems obvious, have seen A Flower for my Sweetheart.
