Folha, “O Estado de So Paulo” and the Rio daily “O Globo,” the three newspapers which compete for influence and the national market, gave the same play in Wednesday’s editions to accusations by a foreign exchange broker who was sentenced to 25 years in prison for tax evasion. The headlines were similar: “Money changer says he worked for PT,” (Folha) referring to the governing Workers Party, “Money changer says he has proof that PT sent money overseas” (“Estado”), and “Jailed money changer tells investigators that he served PT leaders” (“O Globo”).
The accusations, which the next day were already lost in the avalanche of new confessions and denunciations, fingered the PT, a Cabinet minister, president of the Central Bank and people who were already involved in the crisis. The prisoner did not provide any proof, but he guaranteed that he would reveal it in exchange for a lighter sentence.
The episode has an important detail. The money changer testified to legislators in the congressional investigation into the postal service scandals as well as federal prosecutors. The press learned about the accusations through members of Congress and senators.
Some readers wrote in with questions that I support. Weren’t newspapers premature and, furthermore, frivolous, in accepting the accusations by a convicted criminal without proof? In this case, in which the prisoner was investigated, indicted, tried and sentenced, it is possible that prosecutors and congressional investigators determined in the hearings, before revealing the accusations, whether the money changer was able to really show the evidence he promised.
Newspapers
I imagine that managers of newsrooms must have discussed whether to publish accusations without proof and if they should make them headlining stories. I sent questions to directors of the three newspapers and obtained responses from Folha and “O Globo.”
Vaguinaldo Marinheiro, interim managing editor for editions, explained that the internal discussion at Folha “was very difficult.” He said, “The question was this: why make the newspaper’s headlining story out of statements by a criminal who negotiated with congressional investigators to reveal what he supposedly knows? The arguments in favor of the headline were the following: 1. The members of the congressional investigation, by traveling to So Paulo to hear Toninho da Barcelona, lent credibility to the accuser; 2. The testimony, due to police involvement and attention it incited, was the most relevant event of the day; 3. The still-obscure data about involvement of the money changer with the PT since the investigation into Banestado (bank) made the statements newsworthy; 4. People in the crisis, such as Dudu Mendona and Marcos Valrio, told about the use of foreign accounts. Money changers are involved in movements in those accounts. Toninho da Barcelona was considered the biggest money changer in the country, so he should have something to say about the case.”
Rodolfo Fernandes, managing editor of “O Globo,” added another argument: “A process in which money changers and prostitutes become personalities is uncomfortable. I believe this is not good for the country, for politics and for the press. But, when 16 legislators, including PT members, fly from Braslia to hear from the money changer about an operation of enormous size and leave saying that the facts he revealed were consistent, it became inevitable that the press would report it. I believe that the case of the money changer could have been overkill by the congressional investigation, but facing the retrospective of the last three months, is it possible that a few days from now we could still have this impression?”
Responsibilities
What makes newspapers behave this way even as they admitted having doubts? I believe there are two principal factors. One, historical: the fear of being “scooped” by competitors, in other words, not publishing information that you know others have. The other, circumstantial. There was, in this coverage, an inversion in the questions that should have ruled in journalistic decisions. The question “and what if it were all a lie?” was substituted by another “and what if it were true?”
The latter point is important to understand the behavior of the press in the scandal involving the “monthly allowances” (paid to legislators in exchange for supporting the administration). What is orienting coverage, and in a certain way, understanding by the population itself, is the idea that in this case anything is possible.
Various accusations without proof were confirmed, the negatives and vehement denials were unmasked, and versions and versions were redone daily. Strange as it might seem, this gives credibility to any new accusation.
This does not free newspapers from responsibility. In the case of Wednesday’s headline, the newspapers themselves realized that they went overboard, but none was able to admit it frankly. They preferred to put the onus on legislators who revealed the accusations. Various stories were published in the coming days on this theme.
The editorial “Rule,” published Thursday by “Globo,” revealed the attitudes of newspapers to exempt themselves from responsibility. “The legislative commissions should investigate and seek the best information possible wherever it comes from. Even from money changers. But there are obvious precautions to take with certain types of testimony. There is proof in testimony that nothing is worth more than the qualifications of the witness. In this case, judgment about reputations can only be made through presentation of documented proof, and very well checked.”
We could say that the rule should also apply to the press. The fact that accusations came from legislators does not change the newspaper’s responsibility.
The case of the hairdresser
Folha has published various stories written in code. There are stories without identified sources and without proof that is only insinuated. Some are silly, others border on irresponsibility.
The newspaper published on Tuesday, in a column by Mnica Bergamo, the story “Hairdo,” which I reproduce: “Far from the flashes since the “allowance” scandal erupted, first lady Marisa Letcia also skipped out without paying at her favorite salon: Studio W, owned by Wanderley Nunes, in So Paulo. When she managed to persuade the hairdresser to allow her to pay for his services, which run as high as 3,000 reals (the equivalent of US $1,250), Marisa’s bill was put on a credit card that was not hers.”
Who paid the first lady’s expenses? On any other occasion, the information would become an inconsequential story, but not now, when there are investigations into the use of slush funds by the PT and corporate credit cards by the president’s office.
The next day the newspaper published a denial signed by Andr Singer, press secretary and spokesman for the president. “The president’s press secretary and spokesman categorically denies the frivolous information published yesterday in Folha that the first lady, Marisa Letcia Lula da Silva, used any credit card that was not in her name.”
It was hoped that the newspaper would answer this. If the story were right, it would be reaffirmed. The preference would be to identify the owner of the credit card who paid the bill. If the story were truly wrong, the right thing would be to admit it and publish a correction. The newspaper preferred silence.
There was another problem with the story. According to Globo Publishing’s magazine “Quem,” the first lady did not skip out without paying at the salon. At least, that is what the story “Pit stop” said in the second most-recent edition. “While in So Paulo on Wednesday, Aug. 3,
the first lady, Marisa Letcia Lula da Silva, took advantage of the situation to take care of her appearance. She made a pit stop in the new salon owned by her faithful squire Walderley Nunes at W Iguatemi, recently opened in So Paulo. She arrived with a bouquet of flowers for her friend and stayed a few hours at the location to get moisturizing, a haircut and dye. Shortly afterward, she returned to Braslia, which everybody knows has been on fire in recent weeks. ‘I don’t charge haircuts for only about 10 people, and Marisa is one of them. I don’t charge, first, because that is not my practice and secondly, because we are good friends. I go to her house and she comes to mine. We talk about everything except politics,’ Wanderley said.”
And now? Did she skip out without paying or not? Did she pay with someone else’s credit card or did she not pay the hairdresser? I imagine that Folha will still clarify this matter.
Translation by John Wright
