Over the past two weeks the country has experienced the consequences of a clash between two top-level government officials, Antonio Palocci (finance minister) and Dilma Rousseff (presidential chief of staff) concerning the direction of the economy. The differences in thinking, while normal in any administration, took on airs of an uncontrollable crisis due to the fragile condition of the administration of President Luiz Incio Lula da Silva and his ministers amid accusations of corruption.
The new chapter in the government crisis began with an interview with Rousseff in the daily newspaper “O Estado de So Paulo” on Nov. 9: “Dilma rejects fiscal adjustment supported by Planning Ministry.” With the deepening crisis, dismissal of the minister began to be discussed concretely. On Nov. 13, Folha published: “If Palocci leaves, Mercadante is the choice.” It referred to Aloizio Mercadante, a senator from So Paulo in Lula’s left-learning Workers Party.
Things heated up on Monday, Nov. 21. The newspaper began to print Tuesday’s edition at 8:30 p.m. with the information that Palocci threatened to quit on Thursday, Nov. 17 and demanded more support from Lula as a condition for staying in the government. The headline was “Lula praises Palocci, who is mulling whether he will stay in job.” In its edition printed at 11 p.m., the newspaper added an item to a briefs column citing a person who heard the president saying Palocci “was out of the government” and that he would appear before Congress “only to meet an obligation.” The headline was spicy: “Lula praises Palocci, who asked to leave the government” and a story on the front page reported something that the briefs package did not say: “… Palocci … already advised the president that he will leave the government.” It was confusing.
The outcome of the crisis is known: the disagreement with Rousseff persists, but Palocci, while he really has tried to resign, stayed in the government through yesterday.
Mediumistic journalism
The palace intrigue put into focus the use of anonymous sources in journalistic coverage. Many readers say they are uncomfortable with stories published without identification of sources, mainly those which have confidential information. How could the newspaper know what the president is thinking? This is what Fernando Bayeux de Arajo of So Paulo asked: “What is this: mediumistic journalism?”
Some observations. First, no newspaper that intends to be well informed about public power and that is willing to reveal its deviations, irregularities and crises can leave out anonymous sources. It is ingenuous to imagine that people will expose punishment and reprisals against those in government who want to keep their mistakes far from the spotlight.
Some big stories in Folha’s recent history were possible thanks to anonymous sources, such as revelations about the military’s parallel nuclear program and fraud in government contracts for the North-South Railroad.
The problem, however, is when this resource is used in an abusive and irresponsible way. This is the reason for the crisis of credibility at U.S. newspapers, as clearly shown in cases of information about Iraq. There are no similar scandals in Brazil for a simple reason: here, with rare exceptions, the press does not have the courage to expose its own errors.
Relationship to confidence
Folha has clear rules about using “off the record” information. They are in Folha’s stylebook and were reinforced in internal communications dated July 17, 2003.
“The use of off the record information is rendered banal in the newspaper. It is necessary to redouble caution in checking information obtained this way. Whenever asked, reporters should communicate the origin of this information to their superiors in the hierarchy. Knowing the identity of sources who are kept anonymous, they should be careful to maintain secrecy.” As established in the stylebook (page 46), it is necessary to check and cross-check this information, assuring the reliability of the news and verifying the interests in question.
In the matter of recent coverage, both sides in the governmental dispute tried to manipulate the press by planting contradictory information. It’s always that way. News organizations are expected to have the ability and independence to separate speculation and publish facts. Folha wanted to keep its readers well informed after “Estado” published the interview with Rousseff that unleashed the crisis. It is true that Palocci tried to resign on more than one occasion and made demands to stay in his job. I am not sure that the president said at any time that the minister’s departure was irreversible. It is possible. Subsequent reconstitution of that moment would clarify things. Anyway, Tuesday’s edition of Folha was confusing and erred by attributing information to a briefs column that did not have the information.
The use of anonymous sources implies a relationship of confidence between the newspaper and its readers. They must be sure of the quality of the sources that supply the reporters at the newspaper, even without knowing who they are. The reporters and editors must be conscientious about this responsibility.
Readers can’t be misled. One piece of false information must be corrected as quickly as possible, and they must be informed in cases of unethical behavior by journalists. Confidence is established that way.
INTERVIEW
Inside information about power
Kennedy Alencar is one of the reporters at Folha who follows, in Braslia, inside information about power. He reported the main stories that the newspaper published in recent weeks about the confrontation between Palocci and Rousseff and repercussions at the presidential palace. He is 38 years old, with 15 years as a journalist and has been at the newspaper since 1995 after working as a press aide to Lula during his unsuccessful presidential campaign in 1994. He has covered two wars (Kosovo and Afghanistan).
Ombudsman – How do you work to obtain exclusive information about the president?
Kennedy Alencar – It is an investigative process. I talk to one source, check the information, and filter out the source’s interest. The filter has objective criteria: history of reliability, knowing what side of the story the source is on, and his or her interest in revealing the information. I repeat the process with other sources. I speak with those who talk to the president, his ministers, aides, allies in Congress and even opponents who have visited with him. After cross-checking the information, I get an idea about what the president thinks, plans and believes.
Ombudsman – What criteria do you use to choose sources?
Alencar – The main criterion is reliability. If the source, repeatedly, provided true information, that person is put on a list of contacts who I talk to regularly. The exceptions are stories based on only one source, as reliable as that may be. Most of the time, the story is the result of a puzzle assembled over the last 24 to 48 hours. Some stories are the result of working for days.
Ombudsman – Should journalistic coverage of power go without the use of anonymous sources?
Alencar – No type of coverage should go without. Anonymity gives security to transmit information that the source can’t provide publicly.
Ombudsman – How do you deal with frequent critics who question important stories without identified sources?
Alencar – I respect them and believe they are pertinent. Off the record increases journalists’ responsibility. This responsibility should be shared with managers (editors). There is a risk of injustice, of the newspaper serving as an instrument of a politician, of a business executive with an opposing interest, of bad information that seems important. Whether it is “inside information about power” or “investigative journalism” it is important to be attentive to the risk of manipulation by sources with opposing interests who want to hurt their adversaries. If anonymity protects a good source, it also protects a bad source. The public interest is an objective criterion to validate information obtained from a source with interests, but it is important to not jump the gun, not make agreements as tradeoffs in the name of a scoop at any cost. This would be taking sides and admit being used, which a journalist can’t do.
Translation by John Wright
