10/06/2007

"Off the record" at risk

By MÁRIO MAGALHÃES
ombudsman@uol.com.br

It is necessary to be more careful with "off the record"; it is not unusual for sources who stay in the shadows to exploit the status to "plant" false or self-serving imprecise information

The methods used by reporters often are not clear. One of the most valuable is called "off the record," when the journalist keeps the name of the person who provided the information confidential. The phrase originated in English. It is a situation in which the sources impose certain conditions.

It was "off the record" that allowed Folha to come out Tuesday with an exclusive report: retiree Genival Inácio da Silva, the president's oldest brother, had been accused by Federal Police in Operation Checkmate.

Vavá, his nickname, is suspected of influence peddling in the executive branch and exploiting the prestige of the Justice Ministry. Competing newspapers reported only the order to search and seize in the home of Lula's relative. They ignored the accusation.

Another "scoop" without identifying the source, nevertheless, had nothing to support it. Also Tuesday, the front page of the edition that circulates in São Paulo and the Federal District announced: "In India, Lula is irritated by news of the operation (which affected Vavá) and complains to advisers about not being advised."

On an inside page: "Folha learned that President Luiz Inácio da Silva, who was in India, reacted with irritation upon learning about the inclusion of his brother in the Federal Police investigation. He complained about not being advised in advance and told advisers that he had already told his brother to be careful to not compromise him."

On Wednesday the story disappeared. In its place, the newspaper described "contrariness" by Lula "for not being advised of the accusation in advance." It is one thing to know about an operation beforehand, it is another to know about an accusation in advance.

After feigning the two versions, without recognizing the mistake of the original, Folha reported a third one on Wednesday (later referenced by the Justice Ministry and presidential palace): Minister Tarso Genro alerted the president about the operation two hours before the search and seizure.

Through Friday the truth was not known. There was not doubt by the newspaper on Tuesday when it boasted, without reservations, about the president's "great irritation."

Folha should exercise more caution with "off the record." It is the origin of great reporting, but also of problems ("The New York Times" had a reporter who invented stories by making up shady sources).
It is not unusual for a source who stays in the shadows to "plant" information and accounts that are false or imprecise that help his own agenda.

According to "O Estado de São Paulo," Franklin Martins "criticized the press for not having a parallel investigation to the Federal Police (in Operation Checkmate) and supposedly accept the material furnished by his sources without questioning or checking."

The Minister of Comunications is correct. I add: his recommendation is worthwhile for sources in the police as it is for journalists who cover the presidential palace.

Photos that look like editorials

(Photo captions: Demonstrators against Hugo Chávez (left) and those who favor the Venezuelan president (right)

The decision by the Venezuelan government to not renew the license for the RCTV television station is undemocratic and attacks the public interest to guarantee the expression of diverse political thought, including in electronic journalism.

RCTV had a coup-mongering posture and, furthermore, broke the law in the failed attempt to depose the constitutional president, Hugo Chávez, in 2002. The first impression does not contradict the second. Without pluralism in information, there is no democracy.

RCTV does not constitute a model of independent journalism, but rather partisan. What Chavez wants, however, is not autonomous TV, but vassalage. It is better to have a rabidly opposition channel than one which serves as a mouthpiece which does not scrutinize power.

Folha takes an editorial position against Chávez. It is legitimate to formulate opinions. But the newspaper should not allow it to contaminate the news. That is what seemed to happen last weekend. On Saturday, the front page showed a photograph of three RCTV employees. On Sunday, it showed two Chávez supporters, one facing forward and the other one from behind, wearing skimpy bikinis. It seemed like opposition editorializing.

Up to now, Folha escaped the climate of campaigning against Chávez. It errs when it does not cite the motives alleged by the government against RCTV, but maintains pluralism. It would be a shame to transform the news space into opinion.

Inside Information Lacking About Serra

Folha does much better as a tribune of diverse opinions about the threat -- or lack thereof -- to the autonomous university than reporting on the mobilization at São Paulo public universities. The coverage blundered by delaying in identifying the impact of the movement to the lack of a lot of information.

Dozens of readers who wrote to the ombudsman see the newspaper as sympathetic to the strikers, others to Gov. José Serra. That is a sign -- a positive one -- of balance.

The biggest deficiency was to forget the governor's office -- contrary to what occurred with the invaders of the rectory at the University of São Paulo, which got numerous pages.

Folha did not tell who had the idea of issuing the decrees that conflagrate higher education, if the governor was looking for a confrontation or was surprised by the harsh reaction, nor how different factions in the Brazilian Social Democracy Party (PSDB) position themselves in the crisis.

The newspaper only paid attention to the students. It failed to investigate the government, reveal its inside sources. In summary, it did not do the necessary reporting.

Translation by John Wright