The nation will vote in 15 days on a referendum about the sale of firearms and ammunition. The campaigns for yes (favoring a ban on sales) and no (against the ban) are on radio and TV. Three magazines carried the campaign on their front pages with distinct points of view.
“poca,” with 420,000 copies, had a neutral presentation: “Arms, understand before you vote. What could change in your life with the plebiscite on Oct. 23.” A monthly magazine for youth, “Trip,” which sells 50,000 copies, defended the yes vote: “Why you should choose disarmament.” And “Veja,” the biggest-selling magazine in Brazil with 1.1 million copies a week, was categorical: “7 reasons to vote no – the ban will disarm the population and strengthen the arsenal of bandits.”
Coverage by big newspapers, including Folha, is frankly favorable to the yes vote. The big surprise was “Veja” for two reasons: it defended a no vote, going against the predominant position, and did so with an opinionated report, as if it were an editorial, contradicting the canons of journalism about impartiality.
“Veja” is like that, with controversial opinions, and its readers, I imagine, are accustomed to this editorial line. The search for impartiality and objectivity should be a permanent commitment by the press. It does not mean that news organizations don’t have or should not take positions.
The Supreme Electoral Court last week turned down arguments against the circulation of “Veja” and “Trip” on the understanding that they are not prohibited from taking political positions during the campaign.
The ideal, I believe, is that each newspaper and magazine be pluralistic, that they make room for different positions that compete for public opinion. But diversity should be contemplated, mainly, by the press in its totality. Is it possible? It is a distant objective while the principal trademark of our model of communication is the high concentration of companies, audience and advertising.
In any event, I believe it is wholesome for magazines to have distinct positions about the referendum. That is a good sign, without considering the merit of the reports’ quality. There are journalistic options that readers choose. It is fundamental for newspapers and magazines to make their editorial commitments known. This is what is called transparency.
Folha declares, in its stylebook and in its editorial project, a commitment to critical, pluralistic and non-partisan journalism, holding back the opinions of the company. Do they achieve it? Not always.
In the case of the referendum, the newspaper favors a ban on arms sales. The editorial, “Against arms” (May 15) defends the yes vote, while another editorial (July 27) warned that the prohibition should be viewed with caution “to not feed illusions.” The news tries for impartial coverage, which contemplates the two positions at stake, but analysis of recent stories shows that sympathy for the yes vote influences the final results.
The section Folhateen, aimed at youth, had the referendum on its Oct. 3 cover. The headline followed along the lines of the same prudence as the editorial: “Farewell to arms?” The idea of the story was the orientation: “Know the arguments by those who favor and those who oppose the measure.” But the two inside pages carried three testimonies favorable to a yes vote, one of them by celebrity musician Marcelo Yuka and only one, from a journalism student, in defense of a no vote. Is this balance?
On Sept. 22, the newspaper published news about the death of a youth. “15-year-old takes father’s gun and fatally shoots 11-year-old friend in Rio.” At the bottom of the small story there was a subhead pointing out that the referendum will be held on Oct. 23. That is subtle. These are blunders.
Coverage of the referendum puts the press at risk once more. There is a big expectation which, more than positioning, could help the reader understand what is at risk. In a country such as Brazil, where education is precarious and few people read, where there are almost no forums for analysis and debate, where university production is small and badly scattered, and where official publicity by (all) the governments is electoral, the press is called on to perform functions that are not its own.
The frustration is permanent because it does not manage to give deep coverage to more complicated topics. Whether it is a result of being unprepared, or because it is dispersed and unfocused, or because it is not attentive to the big problems except for its own agenda, the truth is that more complex topics are treated in a superficial way without continuity.
Now we are seeing this happen with the project to divert the So Francisco River (it was necessary for a bishop to go on a hunger strike to awaken the press to the size of the conflicts that are at stake).
In the case of the referendum on arms, I believe it is difficult for the press to bring some rationality to the discussion. What will orient votes now, unfortunately, is not the debate or unbiased information, but official propaganda charged with distortions and mystification.
STYLEBOOK
Campaign
“Folha carries out campaigns in special situations when it directs its efforts to promote a certain cause that is judged to be in the public interest. In 1984, for example, Folha was involved in the campaign for direct election of the president (at the end of the military dictatorship). The newspaper, however, was obligated to publish viewpoints contrary to those it favored in the campaign, even as they occurred. Folha never participated in the campaign to praise or discredit people or serve the individual interests of a political party, group or ideology.” (Stylebook, page 37).
“Veja’s” position
The most crushing criticism that I read about the cover of “Veja” was made by journalist Alberto Dines of “Press Observatory.” He called the story a “classic in pamphleteer journalism.”
Managing Editor Eurpedes Alcantra explained the magazine’s position toward the referendum. I will reproduce the entirety of his rationale. The editorial position of “Veja” is included.
“‘Veja’ does not hide its positions, nor does it take refuge in the comfort of neutrality. This editorial policy does not exempt us from showing two sides of a question. But for this reason, it is necessary for two sides to exist. In case of the referendum, despite the fact that people can vote yes or no, the duality is illusory. The question is not being stuck between one group of people who want to ban firearms and the other group that fights to keep them. The role of the press is to show, from a distance, the arguments of one side or the other, as is its obligation, for example, in elections by the majority. The question proposed by the referendum is another – as we tried to show in ‘Veja’s’ report. The question proposed is whether Brazilians will accept having an individual right suppressed by a ‘dictatorship of the majority,’ using it as one of the instruments of direct democracy, popular consultation. This instrument is valid and has been used frequently to gauge the wishes of people in Europe and some states in the United States – but it is never used in republican nations to diminish the rights of citizens and increase those of the state. Successful direct consultations seek to arbitrate conflicts among groups and approve constitutional reforms. A referendum that asks citizens if they want to have basic rights suppressed should never have been proposed. Thus, it deserves only one response: No.”
Translation by John Wright
