While some of the criticism of the press is an attempt at intimidation, there is no doubt that election coverage had its faults
The end of the presidential election last Sunday was not enough to lower the tone of the criticism by the governing Workers Party (PT), members of the federal government and parties (winners and losers) about the press. The complaints and accusations against news media became routine since last year, when Folha published the complaints about corruption made by former Congressman Roberto Jefferson against the federal government and its allies in Congress.
All last week, the situation became more tense with the aggression against journalists in front of the presidential palace, criticism from members of the federal government and the recently reelected governor of Paran state, Roberto Requio, and the interrogation of journalists from the weekly news magazine “Veja” by the federal police in an investigation in which they were called as witnesses but they felt they were interrogated like defendants at a trial. These events provoked a strong editorial reaction by the news media.
My impression is that this was the campaign in which the press faced the most questions. Certainly the Internet had an important role because it created and has not stopped expanding the new space for circulation and confrontation of ideas about the role of the media and about specific coverage in this election. It is a debate that the traditional news organizations have difficulties accepting.
I identify three aspects of the criticism now directed toward the press. First, there are questions about the quality of coverage, including precision of information, editorial equilibrium, the focuses and the biases.
While one part of the criticism is contaminated by resentment and another is part of the attempt to intimidate the news media, I have no doubt that it was a failure in coverage. There were factual errors and at various times they were obvious by the exaggerations and the insistence of caustic remarks and irrelevance, and the bad attitude toward President Luiz Incio Lula da Silva and his administration.
But news organizations did what they had to do in reporting without interruptions and with visibility the dozens of complaints about corruption, irregularities and “nutty” plots. They should be criticized, in this chapter, for not having gone deeply on their own account, perpetuating the dependence on congressional inquiries (and, furthermore, the electoral game), the federal police and prosecutors.
And they should be criticized for what they did not do. The So Paulo state and municipal administrations run by members of the Brazilian Social Democracy Party (PSDB), for example, were badly covered. Evidence of this disinterest, in the case of Folha, is that the information about the financial deficit of the state only appeared at the end of the first round and by the efforts of columnist Mnica Bergamo, also was given routine coverage by the newspaper.
And readers still wait for an evaluation of the public safety policy in the state for the past 12 years to understand how the explosions of attacks by the First Command of the Capital (PCC), which paralyzed So Paulo and cities in the interior, were possible. These failures could be extended to other areas of public administration covered sporadically and lacking in depth.
Criticism relative to the quality and the focus of coverage gave rise to two other legitimate questions, but they are not always well directed. First, there is the role of the press in a developing society and a democracy under construction. Together the discussion about democratization of the news media, understood mainly in terms of the policy of concession of a high concentration of audience to radio and TV and to the publicity machine, sustains the model of communication constructed starting in the 1960s.
As for the role of the press, a parenthesis: there is a serious problem when an intellectual like Marco Aurlio Garcia, head of the victorious campaign for the reelection of the president hired by the PT, reacted like this to reporters seeking information about the future of the party: “Take care of your newsrooms, and we will take care of the PT.” That was a mistake: what happens in the PT and the formation of a new Cabinet is of interest to Brazilian society and, therefore, the press.
The discussion about the role of the press and about democratization of the news media is told but will not be that way for long. Restricted before to sectors in the universities and leaders of social movements, the discussion exploded in this election on the Internet. The traditional press errs in not giving space to the debate clarifying the ideas and proposals in play (even those considered mistaken) and only complains when it feels offended. The long silence that is conceded seems hysterical, disproportionate or merely corporative in the screams that it emits when its feet get stepped on.
Par is right over there
Folha reported on Wednesday that Vale do Rio Doce, tired of “blackmail,” cancelled the 9 million reals (US $4.2 million) in financial that it was sending this year to Indians from the Xicrin tribe who live on lands near Carajs, in southern part of Par state. Carajs is the company’s biggest area for iron mining. And the company is the second-biggest mining company in the world since buying Canada’s Inco on Oct. 24 for at least US $13.2 billion.
The blackmail to which the company refers is the tactic of the Indians, unsatisfied with what they receive, to invade Carajs – and this has already happened several times – to paralyze the extraction of minerals. The conflict between the Indians and Vale is old, and Folha has followed it with little editorial visibility and with the irregularity that characterizes coverage of the Amazon, where the newspaper only has one correspondent, in Manaus.
Information about the contentiousness between the Indians and the mining company comes from three sources: Vale, which has its headquarters in Rio de Janeiro, is generally covered by our bureau in that city, indigenous leaders and Indian agency Funai, who are also covered in Rio or by Folha’s news agency by telephone. The newspaper has not considered it a priority up to now to send journalists to verify in person what happens at Carajs.
While the stories have always considered both sides of the conflict, various points remain obscure. The first is the nature of the assistance. According to Vale, cited by Folha, it is “voluntary” help and does not represent an indemnification to indigenous groups for use of the land. In the understanding of Funai and the Xicrin leadership, it is not aid but rather a right guaranteed by a presidential decree in 1997 that authorizes use of the area in exchange for “support for indigenous populations.”
The other point about the stories is that distance does not allow it to clarify the amount that goes to the Indians. According to information collected by Folha about Vale, that would be 6 million reals (US $2.8 billion) in 2005 and 9 million reals this year, now suspended. According to the Indians, it was more like 4 million reals (US $1.9 billion) in 2006.
Sending a team would allow direct observation of what is happening in this conflict among unequals. In the war of public opinion, Vale has an obvious advantage by what it represents nationally, for its proximity to the news media and by the economic strength expressed in the advertisements that it frequently runs in newspapers to explain itself.
The newspaper would give proof that it has recovered its ability to invest in the newsroom after years of the recent financial crisis. Expenditures on federal and state elections this year and the more frequent presence in neighboring countries – as now, with the signing of a new agreement between Petrobras and the Bolivian government – are indications of this improvement.
The Amazon – where the confluence of agricultural, indigenous and environmental conflicts makes the confrontation between Vale and the Xicrin seem a minor case – should be at the top of the newspaper’s priorities. It is possible to continue to cover Par by telephone; but it is not possible to do it well.
Translation by John Wright
