The Brazilian press just went through two important tests, the coverage of elections in Brazil and in the United States. Did it come out well? I would say that it came out burned, with scratches and questions.
Every election is a trial by fire for any press in the world that tries to be serious and responsible. The legitimate pressures by readers and candidates, and their partisans, transform various moments during the campaign into a rough game that demands a great deal of serenity from newspapers to maintain critical distance and impartial coverage.
In newspapers that have ombudsmen, unfortunately there are only three in Brazil, we are repositories of the ire or the frustration of readers, anger of candidates and reactions of journalists. That is normal.
This clash is even more tense in So Paulo, and the most pressure always comes down on Folha. The two main parties that fight today for national hegemony, the left-leaning Workers Party (PT) and the centrist Brazilian Social Democracy Party (PSDB), were born in So Paulo and have deep roots here.
Both arose, and were identified with Folha, during the “Diretas-J” campaign (against the military dictatorship in the 1980s) and both, erroneously, demand a loyalty incompatible with non-partisanship from the newspaper.
Saying this, I should note that the bigger pressure during this year’s campaign in So Paulo was from readers who believed that Folha had pro-PSDB journalistic conduct. Most of the e-mails that I received in recent months had this complaint. From the first of July to now, of the 472 messages recorded about the national news section, 326 contained criticism of electoral coverage. Some clearly came from PT partisans; others, from readers who said they were nonpartisan but equally unsatisfied with the coverage.
Many times they were not correct, but many times were right, as I pointed out in various columns. On numerous occasions, the newspaper lacked balance in editing, rigor and precision in the information, and regularity in the coverage of state politics that spilled over into the municipal election. It is pointless to come back to the examples.
With the municipal election finished, the interest of Folha readers now returns to coverage of the new administration. There are hopes that it is equally attentive and critical. Many readers, some for spite or irony and others for curiosity, asked in recent months why Folha did not declare explicit support for a candidate, such as “O Estado de So Paulo” did in favor of (winning PSDB mayoral candidate) Jos Serra and as nearly all the newspapers in the United States did.
The best person to respond to this question and the criticism I sent in my name or in the name of readers during the election, is the editor-in-chief at the newspaper, Otavio Frias Filho: “There are newspapers that declare their votes in an editorial. I believe that is legitimate, but that is not the tradition at Folha. While the newspaper gives its opinions every day in editorials, we prefer not to hitch our wagon to this or that candidacy, with a goal of protecting most of all the autonomy of the newspaper in relation to groups and parties.
I respect the opinions of those who think differently, but I believe that Folha’s coverage of the municipal elections was balanced and impartial. Journalism is not an exact science in that there are always controversies and divergent interpretations. But I think that Folha remains faithful to its commitment to nonpartisan and critical journalism. We intend to dedicate similar treatment to the future So Paulo mayoral administration to what we gave the mayoral term of Marta Suplicy.”
The function of the ombudsman is not to defend this or that interest group, rather to watch to make sure the newspaper offers readers quality information, balanced coverage and plurality of topics, focus, analyses and opinions. That is what I will try to do.
What seems new in society’s relationship with the press, and not restricted to electoral coverage, is the pressure organized through observers and monitoring institutes. In my opinion, the pressure for balance, quality and plurality tends to grow, and newspapers will have to be prepared. These instruments of vigilance should multiply and encompass all areas of journalism. If they are serious, they could have growing influence on news organizations.
The election in the USA
Concerning the election in the United States, I highlight some aspects about Folha’s coverage. First is the commitment of the newspaper, at a time of containing costs, to send experienced journalists (such as Clvis Rossi, Fernando Canzian and Srgio Dvila) to that country and to reserve sufficient space (paper) for daily coverage and special sections.
The second point doesn’t refer only to Folha, but to practically all Brazilian newspapers: the sympathetic coverage that they gave to the candidacy of Democrat John Kerry could not be disguised.
Finally is the extreme dependence that we have on American news services. This subordination restricts the publication of viewpoints from outside of the United States.
I reproduce as follows passages from some pieces that Folha published during the week that readers might not have noticed. The criticism can be applied to other newspapers and other coverage:
—
“I did not see anything new in the coverage, which was very superficial. The major media have a tendency to give enormous emphasis to small controversies, such as the military history of (George) Bush or the service of (John) Kerry in the Vietnam War, but negligence regarding relevant topics…
“The major media are unable to let irrelevant matters slip past. Nevertheless, they do not deeply cover serious topics, such as the war in Iraq or the economic situation in the country.”
Thomas Patterson, professor at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, in “Media were ‘superficial,’ says analyst,” on Nov. 2.
—
“Despite the ideological polarization (that divided the media in the USA), most of the coverage of the 2004 presidential campaign did not lose the fundamental characteristic of sensationalism, superficiality and concentration on trivial topics (such as the personal lives of the candidates and their families, doubtful aspects in their biographies, etc.) that characterize political journalism in the USA.”
Carlos Eduardo Lins da Silva in “Media in the USA also split in the election,” on Nov. 3.
—
“The conduct of the press could be a factor that compensates at least reasonably so, for the failure of the Democrats to frame the opposition. A good part of the important press publicly supported the Kerry candidacy. What is probable is that, given their discomfort with the frivolous attitude to which they were subjected to the bellicose and fallacious Bush policies, there are now even more motives to make the effort for vigilance that only a short while ago they failed to exercise toward the methods of Bush and his associates. The American press knows and feels negative responsibility for what has weighed them down since the subjugation they accepted starting Sept. 11, and the search for the rehabilitation of ethics (and journalistic, therefore) in relation to the government could result in positive controls.” — Janio de Freitas in “The best,” column on Nov. 4.
Translation by John Wright
