08/07/2007
From Abu Ghraib to the Rio slum
By MÁRIO MAGALHÃES
ombudsman@uol.com.br
The dilemma between a negligent state and a state without limits is a false one. Both are outside the law. In a nation of laws, the law imposes and sets limits. Journalism oversees.
The headline "Investigations show indications of torture, says OAB (Brazilian Lawyers Association)," in Folha the day before yesterday made a strong impression. A passage right after the opening of the story about 19 deaths a week ago Wednesday in the Alemão slum referred to "victims of alleged confrontations between police and drug traffickers."
It said "alleged confrontations" and not "confrontations." It was journalistically correct: suspicion that the facts don't correspond to the version given by the state government in Rio is growing.
Information about the coroner's inquests began to appear in newspapers on Thursday, but the detailed report came out the next day.
Folha gave numbers: 13 of the dead suffered gunshots from behind; 10 bodies showed "bloody wounds, abrasions and dark bruises"; in five the "presence of powder on the edges of the gunshot wounds were found, which indicates proximity between those who fired shots and those who were hit"; one dead body had nine puncture wounds.
Through Friday, what happened in the area that reporters had no access, the top of a hill in Rio where the deaths occurred, was ignored. The mystery remained.
For that reason, there was no way to describe "confrontations" that possibly did not occur. According to the OAB, some "deaths in the shootout" might have occurred after being overrun and beaten.
The exercise of journalistic skepticism toward authorities had additional motives since June 27. It called attention to the lack of proportion between 19 deaths on one side and none on the other. There were 19 slaughtered "criminals" but only three were injured and 12 weapons seized.
The same journalism that should inform about promiscuity - or ineptitude and negligence - by authorities toward criminal organizations should demand that government combat crime within the limits of the law. The dilemma between a negligent state and a state without limits is a false one. Both are outside the law. In a nation of laws, the law imposes and sets limits. Journalism oversees.
Even if all those killed were delinquents, they should have been jailed if they were already under police control. It is the same as how the Iraqi military (in the government of Saddam Hussein) and Americans (in the occupation) don't have the right to torture detainees in Abu Ghraib prison.
Folha would do well to persist with the investigation. There is no way for independent journalism to serve as a mouthpiece; rather, it should monitor and question power.
Reader reacts against stories about drugs
Few stories in the past three months provoked reactions as vehement from readers as those about two programs to "reduce damage" to users of illicit drugs. On June 8, Folha reported the existence of a primer with instructions about how to consume them with less risk. Title: "Pamphlet for Gay Parade tells how to snort cocaine."
Readers favoring the "reduction of damage" - if it is not possible to end its consumption by decreasing the damaging effects of drugs by those dependent on chemicals - considered the tone sensationalistic. I had a similar impression.
Last Monday was when opponents of the policy of "reduction of damage" protested against the story about the cut in financing (after being revoked by São Paulo state's Foundation for Research Assistance) for the program dedicated to users of ecstacy. Headline: "Scientists try to continue study about drugs."
Readers who sought me consider the text to be biased against the aforementioned foundation. They pointed out a lack of balance in the description of the scientists: those favorable to the research were cited by their titles and positions at the academy and praised ("impressive resumes that include specialized courses in the most prestigious universities in the United States and Europe").
As for those opposed, there was no information about the status of the university professors. I also agree with the readers' criticism.
Folha contradicts Folha
It is a good time for Brazilian journalism. The case of Senate President Renan Calheiros would not have arisen if not for a "scoop" in the weekly news magazine "Veja" about the payment of his personal expenses by a lobbyist; it would not have survived if not for an investigation by the nightly TV news about the sale of cattle in the Northeastern state of Alagoas; and it would not have grown further without contributions and other exclusive investigations, also by Folha.
The "affair" is the fruit of stories produced with autonomy, without essential information provided by prosecutors, police or the Justice Ministry.
Coverage of his backers in Congress and the presidential palace, nevertheless, has been more accidental than that concerning the activities of the senate leader.
On June 28, Folha reported the meeting between that group and President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva: "Lula was not willing to get involved in favor of Renan. The president is hoping Renan survives the crisis, but he does not want to embrace the cause and make it a matter for the executive branch, two advisers in the presidential Cabinet told Folha."
On the same day, standing beside the Senate president, the chief executive asserted that it is necessary to "be careful to avoid publicly condemning people before they stand trial."
How does the newspaper classify this attitude? Lula was described as giving "public support" for his ally "after their meeting at the presidential palace in which the senator sought the president's help to save him in the Ethics Council."
On Thursday, Folha published more contradictory information. One said that Renan, "for fear of losing," did not want the Senate plenary to vote on the restoration of representation against him in the Ethics Council. Another maintained that the decision of the plenary was "one of the hypotheses desired by Renan."
Translation by John Wright
