The press adores a gaffe; it is pleased because it gives the idea that we are no worse than the chosen ones, that we are all equally ignorant
The press adores a gaffe. A gaffe is a mistake, a stumble, an absurdity, an unrestrained verbal blunder in an improvised speech or a thoughtless statement. A gaffe is funny or insulting, an uncomfortable situation, a public demonstration of a lack of sense or education. It is pleasing because it gives that idea that we arent all worse than the chosen ones, that we are all equally ignorant.
Readers adore gaffes, taking into account the importance that the press dedicates to absurdities. They are even more delicious and attention-grabbing when they come from the president. Luiz Incio Lula da Silva commits many gaffes. So did his predecessor, Fernando Henrique Cardoso (a column by Janio de Freitas on Dec. 19, 2001 said that Cardoso is a very unique case of verbal impatience. His ability to be inadequate with unmentionable verbosity, ruining so many of the ideas he does not control with his words that do not contain them, have produced a collection of stories of numerous gaffes that end up revealing more about the author than common methods used). As for George W. Bush, dont even go there.
Interest in gaffes has been around since the earliest days of the press. But nobody had revealed this interest (diversion?) so crudely as the recently released book Travels With the President (Record Publishing) by reporters Eduardo Scolese of Folha and Leonencio Nossa of O Estado de So Paulo, both of them responsible for covering President Lula:
While Lula is revered outside the country, Brazilian journalists show fear to seem like lackies, especially in the trips full of collective delirium and effusive praise. In Brazil, it is worth saying, the first months of his administration counted on the benevolence of the press in general. A while after the inauguration, once the novelty wore off, it became commonplace for journalists to admit that it took them a while to realize the administrative inefficiency of the Workers Party (PT) administration. This suggested complacency by the sectors of the press with the federal government, however, did not occur toward President Lula on his first trips outside the country. In newsrooms, orders given to reporters sent to other countries were to redouble attention to the occasional gaffes of the president with foreign authorities. Whatever slip or mistake by the president little accustomed to these formalities was more important that the economic discussion or signing of a bilateral agreement with some country.
By the way, the book is very interesting. As much for reconstituting inside sources in the three years of the Lula administration (and because the best stories were not in newspapers the next day?) as for the frank and rare exposure about how the relationship, as tense it is always is, has been between the press and power.
Editorial forums
The big newspapers got it right in this election with three initiatives: uninterrupted following of the scandals that involved politicians running for election to legislative bodies; the focus of campaign finance in the campaigns and accounting for the Justice Department; and the public forums of candidates for president and state governors.
The forums have a format that guarantees a strong questioning of the candidates, but it allows them the same time to deepen the topics that they consider most important. They dont have the temperature and the tension of the debates, but in compensation they create conditions for a better understanding of their ideas and a better evaluation of the performance of each one in front of a platoon of reporters and interested citizens.
President Lula, who is already refusing to participate in debates and only shows up at interviews with the Brazilian Television System (SBT) and Globo Broadcasting Network, was the only candidate who did not accept invitations to participate in the forums promoted by the newspapers. Folha and O Estado de So Paulo had different reactions to the refusal.
Estado sent the president prepared questions for the frustrated forum and published, on two pages in Thursdays editions, the responses that it received from the presidential palace by email. Folha, the same day, published a page with 50 questions that could not be asked.
Which approach served readers better? Its hard to say. The two initiatives demonstrated how the forums with journalists and readers can be transformed into an important tool to demand clarification during elections, more than the debates in the first round which frequently get lost in cursing and a lack of time.
Folhas questions showed that Lula still has a lot to explain about his first term. And the responses obtained by Estado, merely official press releases, prove that, for democracy, the best electoral test is a direct clash with the press and, in the case of the forums, with citizens. Only that way is it possible to guarantee space for objections and clarifications.
Meeting of observers
A meeting of the Latin American Conference of Media Observers, organized by the Press Observatory (www.observatoriodaimprensa.com.br), starts tomorrow in So Paulo. The event will bring together representatives of 10 countries from universities, research institutes and organizations that critique the press. Journalist Carlos Castilho, one of the organizers of the conference, is from the Press Observatory and the author of the Open Code blog.
OMBUDSMAN What is the importance of press observatories?
CARLOS CASTILHO Observatories are increasing in importance in an environment of contemporary information due to the growing necessity for context in the news, as a way for readers to separate the wheat from the chaff in the avalanche of information generated by the Internet. Observatories seek to stimulate and demand context and diversity in information in the press. Observatories are not patrols or inspectors. They are one part of the process, together with ombudsmen, since we already know there is no absolute perfection in newspapers, radio, TV and news sites.
OMBUDSMAN How is the work of observatories changing with the explosion of websites and blogs which watch the work of the press?
CARLOS CASTILHO The work of observatories should change a lot as a result of growth of phenomena such as weblogs produced by people without any journalistic experience. Today there are already thousands of media critics spread out around the world. One of the objectives of the conference is precisely to seek answers to the challenge created by the weblogs. We believe that the complexity of the problem requires a recombination of information, perspectives and data that various observatories seek the most suitable solutions for their reality. The main objective of the conference is an exchange of information and knowledge. We are convinced that it will be difficult to get unified responses. But one thing seems certain. The observatories should continue to serve as references for context in information.
Translation by John Wright
