08/04/2007

The predictable newspaper

By MÁRIO MAGALHÃES
ombudsman@uol.com.br

It is difficult to tell if Folha today is a better or worse newspaper than it was 18 years ago when it instituted the position of ombudsman, and Caio Túlio Costa published his first column (in September 1989). It is easy to show that it has become more predictable.

A predictable newspaper can be a triumph or a disgrace.

The good predictable newspaper contains what readers expect: topics, angles, services, even idiosyncracies. It offers - or at least seeks to offer - information with the standards to which they are accustomed.

At a bad predictable newspaper, it runs short of surprises. It is not curious or provocative. It sounds sad, apathetic and lacks style. At first glance, it gives an impression that it can be put off until later.

The ideal newspaper is balanced: it is predictable at meeting the daily expectations of readers; and it refuses to be predictable because it surprises, identifying with agility the news that transforms information.

At its best, it is devoted to being predictable at surprising.

There are newspapers which, by their character, can dispense surprises. That is not the case at Folha. In recent years, however, it has become more predictable in the sense of undesirable journalism.

The apparent lack of daring occurs at a time in which the so-called prestigious Brazilian newspapers are becoming more alike. Competitors mimic innovations that Folha successfully introduced.

Around the world, due the impact of the Internet, printed newspapers are faced with a crisis that is probably the biggest in its history.

Printed newspapers need to produce more than a summary inspired by events of the previous day, although this remains their essential obligation.

With increasingly fragmented information, it is enough for the newspaper to organize facts as journalism in ways other media that can't do, for now.

Despite leading the market, Folha can't boast circulation bigger than before the Internet. It has cut journalists, paper, correspondents in other states and overseas, and ways to check for errors.

It has slowed instituting its editorial project that cultivates critical journalism (failure by being ingenuous), impartial (blunders in bias) and pluralistic (when it does not go beyond unique thinking).

In this more complex and challenging scenario for the newspaper, the ombudsman must be the best possible synthesis in the interest of readers. I will dedicate myself to this starting now as the new listener.

Today Folha recognizes its mistakes more often and faster than before having an ombudsman. It is the minimum: respecting readers is, overall, informing correctly.

Folha seen now by its former ombudsmen

On the eve of taking the job as ombudsman at Folha, I asked journalists who developed and consolidated the job as readers' representative for brief comments about negative and positive aspects of the newspaper today. Their responses:

Caio Túlio Costa (ombudsman from 1989-91; today heads the IG Internet service provider).

"Negative: Folha no longer manages to differentiate itself from its competitors. The big newspapers are very similar in content, format and editorial line, all of them conservative. Folha seems to have forgotten its unique ability to criticize everything and everyone. It lost its exuberance. It has become mature, austere and embittered."

"Positive: It is the only organization among the big Brazilian press that respects, in some way, the right to response. The victims of the press will always find in Folha a shelter, a place to insert their version through letters, ombudsman or op-ed pieces in the diverse opinion sections."

Mario Vitor Santos (1991-93 and 1997) is executive director of the Casa do Saber (Home of Knowledge), which sponsors debates, reflection and knowledge.

"Positive: The newspaper continues to be independent and non-partisan. Furthermore: Folha remains a courageous and bold newspaper."

"Negative: The newspaper seems very repetitive. It has not managed to transform its agenda of topics. It is excessively interested in finance and little attracted to more relevant topics such as education. If Folha does not manage change its agenda of topics, putting education as its priority, how can it expect the government and country to do the same? The priority it gives to the financial economy, especially bonds, seems to indicate a preference for topics of concern to the elites."

Junia Nogueira de Sá (1993-94; is director of corporate and public relations at Volkswagen of Brazil).

"The best thing about Folha is its reputation, built over many years when the newspaper bet on innovation and plurality - the ombudsman is a chapter in this. At Folha some ideas and practices today are disseminated in Brazilian journalism, which became more modern and up-to-date."

"I will divide the worst thing at the newspaper into two visions. At the macro level, it is the subjectivity that is afraid to escape from the columns and contaminate the news, believing that it should be straight and upright. At the micro level, coverage demands that the newspaper give priority to business under the belief that Folha does not see the importance of the topic - dominating the world in which we live."

Marcelo Leite (1994-97, is a columnist at Folha and maintains the blog Science Today).

"Negative: a loss of quality on average in news stories in the newspaper. In terms of quality, I understand the combination of characteristics that the story should contain: verified information, precision, fundamental interpretation, and also, style. They all end up being hurt, I believe by the crisis in resources that has affected the press in general, leading to a reduction in space (paper) and staff, who are now younger and less experienced."

"Positive: Paradoxically, the newspaper seems a little more mature and for this reason it seems less hasty... But this also could show a negative face if it implies a loss of daring, agility and irreverence, which were always the mark of Folha and good journalism.

Renata Lo Prete (1998-2001). Because she is now editor of Letters to the Editor and considers herself "part of the correction of mistakes at the newspaper," Lo Prete preferred to not participate in the survey.

Bernardo Ajzenberg (2001-2004); is a writer and executive coordinator of the Moreira Salles Institute).

"I admire Folha 's daring to maintain an ombudsman - and all that it implies internally and publicly in terms of transparency and open criticism - even in an environment as intensely delicate and adverse for the printed press as today's, knowing the problematic questions at the heart, knowing the challenges of journalism - and those at Folha - remain the same: ethics, faithfulness to facts, impartiality, criticism, analytical ability and creativity."

Marcelo Beraba (2004-2007), was ombudsman until last week. He is president of the Brazilian Association of Investigative Journalism.

"Prestigious newspaper such as Folha have difficulties renewing themselves. The experiences over these three years as ombudsman showed me that readers continue to pursue the same values as always in journalism, with more pressure now: quality of information, balance, intelligence, service, training and good stories."

"In Folha 's favor is the adoption of transparent practices, to correct mistakes and internal criticism that allows permanent questioning of the newspaper that it produces. It has remained faithful over the past two decades to the practice of critical journalism, of checking, and this is to its credit."

Translation by John Wright