05/08/2007

Case not closed

By MÁRIO MAGALHÃES
ombudsman@uol.com.br

It is early, way too early, the mist is still falling and the sun has not yet risen, to assert that one or more errors by the pilot were responsible for the tragedy of TAM Flight 3054.

However, the start of the somber night of July 17 is already behind us, when the crash of the Airbus-A320 right next to Congonhas Airport caused the death of 199 people.

The unknowns in the first hours advised reinvigorated caution relating to the hypotheses about the cause of the accident. Today more is known. Should we ignore caution? To the contrary.

Folha accelerated on Wednesday with the headline "Black box indicates pilot error." Then a "fine line" type of complement under the headline stepped on the brake: "Recordings of TAM Airbus suggest operating error, but equipment failure not discarded."

The newspaper reported that data from the airplane show the computer on board registered a problem with the control stick for the right engine.

The most probable failure, as occurred in similar disasters, would be by the pilot, while an electronic failure could have compromised correct piloting of the instruments.

I considered the "scoop," confirmed hours later in a session of a congressional inquiry into the annihilation of the airplane, to be legitimate. It is in the public interest to know the reasons for the tragedy, even if it is to tell about the safety of landing at Congonhas. With good reporting, we know more than we did before.

Journalism in general also does not restrict revealing the transcript from the final dialogues of the cabin.

Even though Folha has not "convicted" the pilot - it ignored which of the two was in control - it could have been more cautious, conferring even more visibility on the possible breakdown in equipment, as it did on Thursday. On Friday it already mentioned "initial conclusion of human failure." Look, there is no conclusion yet.

Of the 100 readers who sought me through the day before yesterday, 97 disapproved of the newspaper. A good part of them interpreted the headline as a judgment against victims, the pilots, who can't defend themselves from interests such as TAM, Airbus and the National Civil Aviation Agency (Anac).

Folha should consider this as a warning to calibrate its tone. The better attitude is to see the case as it is: far from being closed, with so many questions needing answers.

Macabre humor is the "top, top, top" of Folha in the tragedy
On a front page worthy of an anthology of bad taste, *Folha*'s travel section had this headline on Thursday: "It sways but it does not fall." The macabre wisecrack announced the season for cruise ships along the coast.

Marco Aurélio Garcia used the "top, top, top" about an administration which freely judged the vigilance and as an instant reaction to the news on TV.

The newspaper already had time to think. It lacked respect for those who are still crying over the loss of their loved ones.

Marty Suplicy (former São Paulo mayor) called the phrase unfortunate ("relax and enjoy") about the disadvantages of the crisis long before the Airbus disaster.

Folha published the front page afterward. In a grotesque scene, the newspaper left its mark.

"Government kills more than 200"

With the smoke still lingering at the tragedy, psychoanalyst Francisco Daudt, a columnist for Folha Magazine, wrote, outside of his usual space, an opinion piece published on July 19.

It started this way: "I would intensely like to have my pain lessened by a headline which says in great big letters, "GOVERNMENT KILLS MORE THAN 200 PEOPLE... What occurred could not be called an accident. Let's give it a correct name: crime."

From what is known today, the airport administration was not blamed for the disaster.

On July 20, writer and pilot Ivan Sant'Anna said in an opinion piece that the Airbus was "harnessing" (trying to lift the flight) when it crashed. On July 23, theater director Gerald Thomas said the TAM pilot "tried to harness."

Up to now, the facts released suggest the opposite.

Folha would be correct if it did not restrict its journalists from the guidance to not confirm technical "certainties" without proof about aeronautic accidents. The norm should be extended to outside columnists.

Cansou (Tired)? Then say: of what?

The news came out on the Friday before last in the national news section: "OAB (Brazilian Lawyers Association) launches 'Cansei' campaign to protest." The Civic Movement for the Rights of Brazilians, nicknamed "Cansei," complained about the "air chaos" and "paying too much tax." Among these leaders are lawyers, companies and a tax collector, João Dória Jr., about the financial resources of a candidate belonging to the centrist Brazilian Social Democracy Party. The organization denied partisanship.

Here was the response: "Presidential palace awaits pro-Lula reaction to 'Cansei.'" But the group was a creation of the Central Workers Union of "we are tired" - a play on words with the meaning of "cansei" in Portuguese - (of "slave work" and "media that criminalize people's struggles").

Until the day before yesterday, there were eight days of information and opinion about the topic. If there was more space for interviews with supporters of "Cansei," the antagonists also weighed in. Letters to the Editor was balanced with messages pro and con.

Two columnists, Janio de Freitas and Fernando de Barros e Silva, criticized the group and its ideology, which was defended in a piece by the president of the Chamber of Commerce. In four cartoons, Angeli, Glauco and Jean withered the movement (nothing too much; there were weeks at the start in which the target was Lula.

On Monday, coverage of the demonstration to honor the dead in the tragedy, with the presence of "Cansei," described anti-Lula signs. It came out in the daily news section. By the political bias, it could be in the national news section.

There are things that are tiring. Maybe coverage about "Cansei" is exaggerated and tiring. And you, what are you tired of at Folha and in journalism?

Translation by John Wright