Enrico, one year and eight months old, is the person on the front page of Folha’s supplement for children, Folhinha, on Nov. 6. He is photographed sitting still, with his eyes looking upward, watching the movement of a comb and scissors which were trimming his locks. The photo illustrates the main story in the section: “How will I get my hair done? New hairstyles attract children to salons with lots of fun.”
On the same front page, on the lower part, is an advertisement. A woman lying down on her side without a blouse sells women’s sandals. The photograph insinuates more than it shows, but it has the clear objective of erotic appeal.
No other edition of the children’s supplement in Folha aroused, in the short period in which I have filled the role of ombudsman, so many letters and calls, all of them disapproving. Two readers complained about the topic chosen for the front page. One of them believes it “encourages futility, unbridled vanity and is senseless.” It asked: “What do parents have in their heads (and the newspaper seems to agree with them, since it gave space), who allow such small children to get their hair dyed?”
But the main complaint was about the ad. I reproduce passages of the letter from Ana Claudia Peters Salgado which summarizes what other readers complain about: “I am a teacher and mother of two children, eight and seven years old. My children study at a school which encourages reading newspapers, including a recommendation for Folhinha as the most interesting and appropriate for their age group. It just so happens that when I bought Folha on Saturday (Nov. 6), I was surprised to find a contradiction: in one of the sections (page C6 of daily news) there was a story about the conviction of Zequinha Barbosa (former athlete) for sexual exploitation of minors; and, on the first page of Folhinha an ad for sandals with the photograph of a seminude adolescent model. I had my doubts! Are we convicting with one hand and instigating with the other? Do we really need to sell children’s sandals using seminude girls? If we must, wouldn’t it be better to put it in another section that is read more by parents and Zequinhas? If we don’t need it, why is it there? There is no doubt that there are ways to deal with images and information that our children see in newspapers. But couldn’t newspapers be more careful with our young readers?”
They can and should.
Folha’s mistake
In this case, there is no doubt that Folha erred by publishing the ad on the front page of Folhinha. The mistake was made by the advertising department, which accepted the ad and did not submit it for approval or veto from the newsroom, as it is accustomed to doing in cases of ads that could make readers uncomfortable.
According to Sylvia Colombo, editor of the supplement, the ad is “clearly inappropriate to publish in a section aimed for the youth audience.”
As for the topic on the front page, the new hairstyles that are in vogue for children is justified: “Folhinha has sought to draw the topics on its front page closer to the lives of children. Without decreasing space for stories with an educative tone that stimulate reading, which is already traditional in the section, we are seeking to introduce topics that are present in daily life. From that point is the inclusion of more urban topics relative to consumption that undeniably form part of the daily lives of children. In no way is the intention to stimulate ‘unbridled vanity,’ but instead to deal with these topics with some humor in a parsimonious way.”
Yesterday’s Folhinha gave tips for children on doing Internet searches, and the ad showing the girl without a blouse was substituted for one with children’s drawings.
The image of war
On Wednesday, readers complained once again, this time against the publication of a photograph in the “New York Times” in the international news section. The image, which covered page A10 from the top to below the fold, shows U.S. soldiers who took over a sidewalk in Fallujah, Iraq, and two bodies of dead Iraqi on the ground.
It is normal that readers complain when the newspaper publishes images of war. They are always shocking. The publication is almost always justified by showing the atrocities. But sometimes they seem, by the routine repetition of degrading and extremely violent scenes, unnecessary and redundant.
In this specific case the image has a very strong impact because one of the dead is in the foreground, with open eyes; and the other one’s head is smashed in and bleeding. The shocked readers who wrote or called believed that Folha was “sensationalistic” to publish the photograph.
Marco Chaves is a subscriber to the newspaper. His reaction: “I never felt such indignation seeing photographs of dead people like today. I don’t believe that the newspaper needs something as deplorable as this to sell, and I also don’t believe it is necessary to get this type of visual information, which adds nothing and only makes violence banal.”
Doris Satie Fontes has another kind of thought: “We already know that wars are terrible and absurd. In this case in particular we are even tired of this topic!” Another reader, and I don’t have authorization to identify her, argued: “I think that Folha has the deliberate intention to direct its readers against the U.S. invasion of Iraq, but I believe that there are more thoughtful ways to deal with the topic, especially so early in the morning.”
Visual memory
I took these questions and impressions to the editor for photographs at Folha, Toni Pires. Her response: “The photo is really shocking, and we don’t always publish this kind of image. Many clich images of war come to us every day. Readers already decode these ones, and they are no longer shocking. Sometimes I see the necessity to show the facts ‘from the inside.’ The latest events in Iraq are a demonstration of acts of barbarism practiced by both sides involved. The few different images that we receive show us a scene of horror. I believe that, as disturbing and painful as they are for readers, it is our role to show something more. Not with the simplistic objective of a certain esthetic of horror but with the commitment to bring readers a little more than simple illustrative commentary. These are photographs that should be read and understood like a visual memory of our time. I don’t believe that we should publish these types of images every day, but I see the importance, at certain times, of confronting the degrading and uncomfortable. What we show does not come close to what is happening. Finally, 600 Iraqis have already been killed in Fallujah, according to the United States, in only four days of combat.”
The topic is an old one discussed by other ombudsmen. How do we reconcile respect for reader sensitivities with the responsibility to show the horrors of wars and attacks? It is difficult, and there is no formula that guides the decisions of editors. Some newspapers are guided by what the Americans call, jokingly, the breakfast test. What will be the reaction of a reader who are having breakfast? But this can’t be the only criterion.
In March, Iraqis in Fallujah burned, dragged through the streets and hanged on a bridge over the Euphrates River the bodies of four Americans. It was the start of the insurrection in the city that afterwards became completely overrun by the Iraqis, and the photos were shocking documentation of barbarity.
The image on Wednesday of the dead and abandoned Iraqis does not have the same impact because they were anonymous soldiers – two more. But it is equally a testament to the same stupidity.
Could the newspaper have chosen a less explicit photo? Could it have used it without so much prominence? It could have. But by publishing them, I believe it erred less with excess than it would have erred by omission.
Translation by John Wright
