24/06/2007

Where is Vavá?

By MÁRIO MAGALHÃES
ombudsman@uol.com.br

It is a question of balance: if Vavá's involvement merited a headline, Vavá's lack of involvement would merit at least a mention on the most important page in the newspaper.

Folha headlines:

Federal Police operation reaches Lula's brother (June 5)

Lula defends brother, but supports Federal Police investigation (June 6)

Brother used Lula's name to obtain money, Federal Police say (June 9)

Lula says he doubts his brother is lobbyist (June 13)

Pressure against Renan increases in Congress (June 20)

President's friend and 38 others accused (June 20)

Retiree Genival Inácio da Silva (Vavá), brother of President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, was the main story in Folha for four editions in June.

The first one said that the Federal Police identified Vavá as a suspect in influence trafficking and exploiting prestige. The third one transcribed recordings in which the accused used Lula's name to obtain money. In the second and fourth ones, the chief executive expressed his conviction that his brother is innocent.

On Tuesday, federal prosecutors accused 39 people of various crimes but did not include Vavá in the complaints. They believed there was no proof against him in the scheme known as Operation Checkmate.

It was obligatory to mention, in a headline on the front page, the favorable decision for a citizen facing investigations. In the São Paulo edition on Wednesday, the headline ignored Vavá's victory: "President's friend and 38 others accused."

I wrote in my internal critique the item "Two serious items, one serious mistake." It was not enough that the text of the teaser on the front page said the accusation did not reach Vavá; it was necessary to highlight it. This is a question of balance: if Vavá was involved it would merit a headline, if Vavá was not involved, it merited at least a mention on the most important page.

The newspaper did well with the coverage, despite some blunders. The position of prosecutors concerning the absence of evidence against Vavá does not weaken Folha's previous choice of headlines. Overseeing power is a duty of journalism.

Vavá was accused of having links to alleged members of a gang, the Federal Police sought his arrest (denied by prosecutors), wiretaps exposed suspicious conversations, and the president spoke about the investigation.

All of this is news; it has legitimate public interest.

The newspaper did not "condemn" or "absolve" Vavá. Nor did it assert that it was successful in its actions. On Tuesday, contrary to what they did at "O Estado de São Paulo" and the Rio daily "O Globo," Folha did not publish unfounded information saying that Lula's brother had been accused.

In compensation, the competitors were correct in putting the positive news about Vavá on their front pages.

In the national edition, which closed at 9:06 p.m., Folha put on the front page: "Federal prosecutors accuse Lula's friend and save Vavá." It did not happen exactly this way.

As the dictionary explains, "save" has a sense of "being tolerant" and "indulging." The verb editorializes by putting a subliminal opinion in the wrong place.

I sought comments from the newsroom, which responded: "In the São Paulo edition (12:19 a.m.), the front page was redone due to the new crisis in the air. The complaint by federal prosecutors, meanwhile, continued under the subhead, but the headline went from three to two lines..."

Also: "In the two editions, the teasers about the case asserted loudly that prosecutors filed no complaints against Lula's brother and sought more investigations about the alleged lobbying practices by Genival Inácio da Silva (Vavá)."

In summary: bad news for Vavá got a headline; that is correct, but the size of the headline came out very small.

The problem with "singular thinking"

If the lack of a headline on the front page (it was only on the inside) announcing the decision favorable to Vavá by prosecutors can be interpreted as unfriendly to Lula, news published by Folha on Tuesday was condescending toward the federal government.

The story "Without reforms, pension deficit could triple" came out in the business section. It was accompanied by a "fine line" (under the headline) "Government projections indicate that, without changes in retirement rules, in 2050 there will be no way to contain imbalance."

A study by the Social Welfare Ministry sustained that, according to what was written in the newspaper, "neither an increase in formalizing the (underground) economy nor higher rates of economic growth will avert an explosion of the deficit in the retirement system without reforming the retirement rules."

The idea recognized that the retirement system needs adjustments. It makes no sense that the increase in expected longevity will not have an impact on the retirement age. On the other hand, there are differences about sacrificing some of the rights of workers who are entitled to a dignified retirement.

On this controversial topic, Folha was satisfied with the official version. The newspaper conceded only one reference to differing opinions: "...The study will be used to counter the interests that oppose reform.... such as the CUT (Central Workers Union)."

After knowing the government's motives, readers were not informed about the argument of those who "oppose." I commented in my internal critique: "(The projected scenario) could be correct, but it serves more as a tool to pressure retirees if not confronted with sources who differ."

Folha recommends critical journalism, but it only gave the government position, without questioning it. It defends exposure of multiple ways of thinking but only shows one.

Newspaper highlights "low pressure" and not public TV

Folha on Friday carried two stories about the creation of public TV. It had 112 lines that summarized an interview with the president of the Padre Anchieta Foundation, Paulo Markun ("For Markun, Lula's TV project is good"). In 93 lines, the focus was on Franklin Martins ("Public TV requires channels to change, minister asserts").

The newspaper did not publish opinions against them, which damages editorial pluralism.

The same day, 33 lines came out about the co-host on the most-watched national news on TV: "Fátima Bernardes returns to evening news after 'drop in pressure.'"

The event merits mention, but it was strange that the front page left out a teaser for the discussion about state TV, opting to report on the scare that made Fátima "leave the airwaves."

The newspaper, I believe, reversed the relevance of the information. The host attracted more interest from the public, while the new TV station has more public - and journalistic - interest.

Translation by John Wright