27/05/2007

More questions than answers

By MÁRIO MAGALHÃES
ombudsman@uol.com.br

The future of journalism is hegemonic on the Internet; even though the seeking of answers to so many questions about the future persists

Soon after the opening of the annual conference of the Organization of News Ombudsman (ONO) on Monday, the "reader's editor" at the weekly British newspaper "The Observer," Stephen Pritchard, made a brief observation: "Journalism is not in transition, but in revolution."

Pritchard referred to the title of the meeting, "Ombudsmen in a Time of Transition." If some of the 45 representatives of reader's (from 13 countries) who attended the three days of debates at Harvard University in the United States hoped for many certainties about the future of journalism, they were frustrated. As in many revolutions, there are many more questions than answers.

Some predictions began to become real in other countries, at a more accelerated rhythm than in Brazil.

Alan Rusbridger, editor of the London newspaper "The Guardian," a successful journalistic enterprise on the Internet, starting from a conventional newspaper, spoke about "the end of barriers between the press and on-line."

Richard Chacon, the former ombudsman of the "Boston Globe," said that reporters now go out on assignment with audio and video equipment to put on the American newspaper's website. That habit has not spread here very much.

In his final column as "public editor" (as the ombudsman at "The New York Times" is called), Byron Calame wrote that there has been "notable progress" in the "transition to the center of gravity from the newsroom to the Web, crucial to the future of the 'The Times.'" Calame pondered that the transition could be "a long road."

Future on the Internet

The apparent paradox of the meeting, convened to discuss the passage of journalism into the digital world, is that the stories cited as references were from print and not produced for the Internet. The news story is a noble journalistic type. It is concentrated in print and on TV.

That is a preoccupation of those who defend reader's and viewers - whose biggest interest is to receive quality information: will journalism on the Internet maintain the standards demanded of the press?

It seems simple but it is not. Nelson Castro, ombudsman of the Argentine newspaper "Perfil," complained that newspaper and magazines demand identification from those who send messages and websites and blogs that distribute them.
Reproducing the language of paper on the screen is not only unproductive, but it is a waste. The highest values of journalism should, however, prevail in all media.

One of the fundamental aspects of the contemporary debate about printed media is the crisis that is troubling the industry.

The better it is known, the less confidence there is in it. That is what one of the surveys said in Turkey, where only 3% of the journalists believe in what the media say. In the United States, fiascos castigate their image - none of them overcame the lies of reporter Jayson Blair of "The New York Times" at the beginning of the decade.

"Transparency," "meeting commitments," "credibility," "justice," and "balance" are the principles, procedures and objectives sought around the world. That is what we heard at the conference, which accumulated stories of how those ideals are subverted.

On-line journalism has clear advantages, besides the joining of TV's own resources, on radio and the printed press. Rusbridger emphasized that, as the Internet allows access to a profusion of sources, there will be - and already are - "millions of checkers of information."

For the only Brazilian at the event, the impression stands out that, in the United States and United Kingdom, the transition to journalism on the Net is conducted by top-tier professionals, supported by ample investments.

In Brazil, newspapers highlight a talented and unselfish staff who resent the thin resources.

This timidity ferments the decadence of newspapers longer than fingers have been smudged with ink. Even though it is delayed, the revolution depends on shifting advertising for the new medium - the future of journalism is hegemonic on the Internet, including daily newspapers, even though the seeking of answers to so many questions about the future persists.

The "super-reader" and strikes

Perhaps there is no bigger loss to Folha reader's than the suppression, for use by institutions and prominent personalities, of space that should be theirs. On Thursday, no "common reader" had a signature on a Letter to the Editor.

A survey about the section in 2007 shows that, tied with a local official in Foz do Iguaçu, Paraná state, the leader up to now, with seven messages, is the state secretary of higher education in São Paulo, José Aristodemo Pinotti.

In the daily critique on May 15 (can be read at www.folha.com.br/ombudsman), the most important story was titled "the super-reader." It dealt with one more letter.

In it, the secretary clarified an interview that came out in the previous day's edition. In the daily news section, a story also carried statements about the interview. On May 14, the interviewed Pinotti denounced the students who invaded the rectory at University of São Paulo.

The commentaries did not lead Folha to hear the other side of the attacks. I lamented that.

On May 18, a new message appeared in the Letters to the Editor. On Tuesday, another. Pinotti is not only assiduous as a sender. With four opinion pieces, he is one of the leaders on the op-ed page.

The secretary had a legitimate complaint that led to publication of the messages. The mistake is by Folha, which should assure Pinotti's pronouncement in the editorials dedicated to coverage of the topics about which he gives his opinions. Those involve the mobilization of universities in the daily news.

The letters do not need to be published in this format, but as assertions in quotation marks. That way, space will be saved in the Letters to the Editor to accomplish their mission.

Folha made an effort last week to follow the events at University of São Paulo, University of Campinas and São Paulo State University, to which it mistakenly gave little attention at the start.

Still, the newspaper did not manage to explain the decrees by the administration of Gov. José Serra regarding universities in São Paulo. It is not enough to show divergent attitudes, it is necessary to clarify.

An editorial asserted that "state authorities did not manage to justify, or at least make comprehensible, the series of decrees and determinations interpreted as challenging autonomy."

Why did Folha not make the decrees "comprehensible," translating the legal terminology for reader's?

Because I spent nearly the whole week out of the country, I don't feel qualified to evaluate other aspects of coverage.

Translation by John Wright