The report released Tuesday by the congressional investigation into the postal service scandal is conclusive regarding the scheme denounced by Congressman Roberto Jefferson in June. The document has the value of putting together information collected up to now, but is not so conclusive that it won’t allow for various interpretations.
The opposition is sure that the accusation is proved. Supporters of the administration maintain the position they held previously that there was improper use of a slush fund, but it was an isolated case and that the story of the “allowance”(allegations of payments to support the administration’s agenda) is not proved. There is no doubt, in my opinion, that an elaborate scheme was going on in Congress to guarantee the base to sustain the governing Workers Party (PT). It is also a fact that the report had further holes.
Friday’s edition of Folha carried two interesting comments. The first was an opinion piece by Folha’s bureau chief in Braslia, Valdo Cruz, the journalist at Folha most involved in dealing with this coverage. The headline summarized his point of view: “It advanced, but it did not get there.” He fears that the commission will be content with what has been found up to now and that it will contribute to strengthen the idea that nothing was proved. If this occurs, he concluded that it would be “due to complete incompetence of the investigators.”
The second commentary was by Wilson Oda and was published in Letters to the Editor. Oda also believes that many questions remain unanswered, but he extends his questions as well to the press: “To me, the media owe us answers.”
I agree with the comments by Valdo Cruz, but I believe that the reader is entirely correct. The congressional investigations and the official investigative agencies are slow, faulty and act under pressure, but the media also owe answers. In the following, I outline some observations about the state of journalistic coverage, mainly at Folha.
Shrinking coverage
First point: coverage has shrunk and changed direction.
The most complete survey of work by the press in cases of corruption was done by Transparency Brasil (www.transparencia.org.br) by using news archives at “It was in the Press.”
Claudio Weber Abramo, head of Transparency, summarizes the statistics at Folha, “Estado de So Paulo,” and the Rio daily “O Globo,” the three biggest newspapers: “Despite the fact that coverage about the “allowances” continues to be the main story in the three newspapers, a gradual reduction in intensity has been observed. In the month of August, coverage reached a peak of about 70 stories published per day; in December, the rate was a maximum of 15 stories per day. Coverage in the three newspapers, especially in Folha and “Estado de So Paulo,” through their news agencies, gave the impression that it was published by the great majority of other newspapers in the country.”
Folha had its own survey, done by its news archives, which proved this decrease. The number of stories can’t be compared with those of Transparency because they include all the stories that were categorized with the slug “allowances,” when we know that not all of those with the label dealt directly with the case. But the tendency truly is in decline: more than 1,000 stories were published in July (1,226), August (1,384) and September (1,080) and a free fall in October (597) and November (637).
But more important than the shrinking coverage – quantity does not always mean quality – is the change in priorities at newspapers. In the case of Folha, the changes are clear. The sections that carry political news, which were filled entirely by following accusations and investigations, now are divided among three or four big areas of interest.
Focus on elections
The newspaper’s main focus is the 2006 elections. Approximately 350f the news involves electoral contests. That is my calculation starting from a base of 270 stories published in December. The stories which refer directly to the investigations by Congress, the Federal Police, prosecutors, the auditor’s office and by Folha itself come to 30%.
About 15 0nvolved the removal of Congressman Jos Dirceu (Nov. 30) and the absolution of Romeu Queiroz (Dec. 14) and Jos Nobre Guimares (Dec. 20). The rest were stories about the government, budget, PT, Santo Andr case, Congress and other such topics.
Using December as a base, newspapers were limited to working with information leaked by various organizations involved in the investigations. The attention is directed toward pension funds, which are suspected of having fed PT’s illegal financing scheme. Newspapers have made an effort to advance this, but so far, without success.
Folha published in this period an exclusive story that was relevant, on Dec. 4, when it managed to predict information by the auditors concerning Coteminas, the company of Vice President Jos Alencar: “PT made suspicious deposit for vice president’s company.”
It can’t be said that newspapers have abandoned the investigations. But the biggest contribution, which was nearly exclusive, came from following official investigations, and occasionally, publication of leaked information that must be checked out. The press, furthermore, owes more answers.
Critical journalism
I call attention to two other aspects of Folha’s recent coverage that I consider important. First, what I called in a Dec. 22 internal critique “the abusive use without criteria” of the slug “allowance scandal” on top of almost all the pages of the national news section.
The slug, created to distinguish news about the accusations of corruption and help organize reading, is used indiscriminately. I selected some recent examples that I consider absurd of stories published using the “allowance” slug: “TSE fines Lula for early advertising (referring to an election court fining President Luiz Incio Lula da Silva (Feb. 2); “Cesar Maia says he has stopped supporting Serra,” referring to Rio Mayor Maia and So Paulo Mayor Jos Serra, a possible candidate for president in 2006 (Dec. 5); “Serra says he won’t be candidate, Alckman sees irony,” referring to So Paulo Gov. Geraldo Alckman (Dec. 6); “Official wants minimum wage between 340 and 400 reals in 2006,” which is the equivalent of US $ 145-170 (Dec. 11); “Alencar raises tone and says interest rates are a ‘crime’” (Dec. 15), “Alckmin and Serra compete for FHC support,” referring to former President Fernando Henrique Cardoso (Dec. 20); “Report finds no conclusion in cause of lawyer’s death,” referring to the murder of suburban mayor Celso Daniel (Dec. 21).
The second question deals with the elections. The newspaper published on Sunday, Dec. 18, a two-page interview with Gov. Alckmin of the centrist Brazilian Social Democracy Party. The round of questions did not justify the critical journalism to which Folha has a public commitment.
I wrote in my internal critique on Monday: “I can’t understand how a planned interview to deal with candidates for president don’t have more fundamental questions about his term as governor. The interview is totally oriented toward analyzing the Lula administration and forgets the Alckmin administration. It reaches the point of asking the governor if he agrees with the criticism that in the Lula administration the Federal Police abused firearms, but did not question public safety policies in the state of So Paulo. Parodying one of the questions, the newspaper lost a big opportunity to do a closer examination of the Alckmin administration.”
The obligation to continue investigating the complaints about corruption against the Lula administration and demanding punishment of those responsible does not exempt the newspaper from following critically and overseeing the state and municipal administrations. Especially if these officials will be candidates for president in 2006.
I asked the newspaper to explain the indiscriminate use of the slug “allowance scandal” and the interview with Alckman, but they preferred not to comment on the criticism.
Translation by John Wright
