The violence that exploded in the poor suburbs of Paris and spread throughout France since the end of October have unavoidably also affected the French press.
An important aspect about the coverage was the discovery that journalists were not welcome. Journalists assigned to the front lines faced hostility and, on some occasions, were met with aggression by residents of the conflagrated neighborhoods, where people made no distinction among reporters, police, fire fighters, or politicians. To them, these were all the same.
Folha reporter Fbio Victor felt the hostile environment as related in his story “City where it all began is alarming,” sent from Clichy-sous-Bois and published last Sunday.
Hostile environment
The French press is accused of commission – sensationalism – and omission toward the peripheral neighborhoods which are only visited and reported in the news when they are a platform for crime or negative events. Sporadic coverage is focused almost exclusively on the violence that ends up contributing to concealing the everyday discrimination against people and reinforces the exclusion and prejudice.
That’s what the ombudsman at “Le Monde,” Robert Sol, verified, by receiving several letters from readers indignant about the newspaper’s coverage. “Over the past 20 years, you have participated actively in the taboo of immigration,” one of them wrote. Another, directed at journalists, said: “You don’t understand anything, comfortably set up in your nice apartments on the Left Bank!”
Following what happened in France in recent weeks, it is difficult to not relate it to the explosive situation of our own “peripherals” also excluded. Here there are no Arab and African immigrants, but a population equally discriminated against and lacking in opportunity.
Are Brazilian newspapers attentive to these issues? Or is our coverage equally sporadic, preoccupied only with criminality and, therefore, stimulating prejudices?
On the fringes of society
The editorial “French rebellion,” published in Folha last Sunday, could be applied to Brazil: “It is difficult to not hear in these comments a cry by those who feel they are condemned to always live on the fringes of society. Finding ways to offer work and a sense of opportunity to these sectors of the population is fundamental. But that alone is not enough. A long road must be traveled until those two “sides” recognize themselves as part of the same nation.”
The Rio daily “O Globo” which reopened at the end of September a discussion about what to do concerning the slums in that city, a taboo subject since the policy of removing people in the 1960s, on Friday published an editorial about the events in France (“Voices on the periphery”) with an indignation that, observing the differences, can also be applied to Brazil: “In the end, it can be supposed that law and order will prevail. But when? The problem, of multiple causes that have surpassed the political arena to pure and simple repression, will not go away by itself. It has to do, undeniably, with social exclusion, the difficulty encountered by immigrants from former French colonies in being accepted as French, despite holding citizenship in their identity documents. How is it that someone could feel part of a society that denies him employment?”
The Itapevi train
I return to the question: Are Brazilian newspapers attentive to these issues? Do we know what is happening in the shanty towns and bedroom communities on the periphery of metropolitan regions? Reader Sergio Alexandre Atunes de Carvalho of So Paulo believes they are not. He did not write to the ombudsman because of the conflict in France. But his letter carries a pertinent question. “There are problems with movement at Congonhas airport, in check-in lines and transit in the vicinity. Moving 900 meters in a car takes 30 minutes. There are no spaces to park the car. All of this was on the front page of the daily news section (Wednesday, Nov. 16) and also the left column on the front page of the newspaper, with the use of a graphic.
“On the other side, the Metropolitan Train Company stopped running the line from Itapevi to Amador Bueno 15 days ago, substituting it with a bus that runs jammed full, to the detriment of the elderly, women and children from a more populous neighborhood than the neighborhoods of airport users. And there was nothing about it in the newspaper!”
“The biggest crisis of credibility”
The crisis of the press in the United States indiscriminately affects big and small news organizations and seems to have no end. The pro-government bias after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and successive scandals provoked by the discovery of faked news reports and the improper use of anonymous sources have shaken the credibility of the big TV networks and most prestigious newspapers, such as “The New York Times” (Jayson Blair, Judith Miller) and now, “The Washington Post” (Bob Woodward).
Different from the crisis of credibility that affects the Brazilian media, the newspapers, magazines and TV networks in the United States expose themselves. In Brazil, the press rarely covers its own mistakes and, even more rarely, publicly admits its own errors with a willingness to discuss them.
I sent three questions to the media critic at “The Washington Post,” Howard Kurtz. His comments, translated by Claudia Staunch, follow.
Is it true that the press in the United States is going through its biggest crisis for credibility and trust in its history?
The American media are going through their greatest credibility crisis, without a doubt. Every gauge of public opinion shows this to be the case. This is in part because of a series of spectacular blunders, in part because of an arrogant attitude and reluctance to admit error. But there is also something healthy at work: far more voices and alternative outlets, thanks to the Internet, cable television and talk radio, that is challenging the big media companies as never before.
What are the major factors and characteristics of this crisis? Where did it originate?
U.S. journalists became more aggressive and adversarial toward the government after Vietnam and Watergate, and in some ways this was an overdue development. But this led to a prosecutorial approach that alienated some readers and viewers. At the same time, growing political partisanship in the U.S. has fueled a level of distrust toward journalists from conservatives and liberals alike, each side convinced they see bias of a different kind.
How is the U.S. press doing to win back its credibility and trust?
American journalists must find new ways to connect with their audience, and use technology to engage in a two-way conversation, to begin to repair some of these frayed bonds of trust.
Translation by John Wright
