26/08/2007

A historical error

By Mário Magalhães
ombudsman@uol.com.br

The journalistic scoop, the exclusive news and the repercussion, is like a punch in a fight, it is give and take. The effort is to give more and take less.

On Thursday, Folha was punched by a revelation in the Rio daily "O Globo," an exchange of computer messages between members of the Supreme Court in a hearing into the so-called "monthly payoff" bribery scandal.

Punctually at 12:19 p.m. I concluded my critique of the edition (the daily critiques by the ombudsman can be read at www.folha.com.br/ombudsman). As follows below, between "stars," the latest commentary, termed "The right to know."

A profound debate about the right of privacy and the public's right to information was opened today (Thursday) with the scoop in "Globo," synthesized in the headline "Supreme Court justices agree and expect vote by email."

A photographer recorded the image of computer screens of court justices in the session that discussed the establishment of a case against the 40 accused in the scandal. The newspaper reported that the judges wrote and read: messages dealing with the case and other topics.

Remembering: yesterday (Wednesday) Letters to the Editor in Folha carried an item titled "Online." It said: "The members of the court did not die of boredom during the long hours of oral arguments by defense lawyers in the bribery trial, which starts today. According to someone who knows the habits of the tribunal, various members pass their time navigating the Internet."

On Sunday, reporting on the voting trends related to the case against the president's former chief of staff, José Dirceu, Folha identified four in favor of indictment and four against. That leaves two others. The newspaper wrote: "The biggest uncertainty concerns the votes of Cármen Lúcia Rocha and Ricardo Lewandowski" - the key figures in coverage by "Globo."

Today, in the story "Government expects justice without passion, says Dilma" (page 6), Folha said: "Yesterday, the first day of the trial, ministers used the Internet for consultations and to exchange messages. During the main remarks by Justice Joaquim Barbosa as well as the chief prosecutor, who filed the complaint, at least two justices were navigating the net and conversed on-line over the tribunal's system."

"After reading his formal statement... Barbosa dedicated himself to reading and writing on a laptop. And, during the part when lawyers were talking, the prosecutor also used his computer."

A passage from the "Globo" story said: "Vote agreement reached on the net... The conversation (between justices Cármen Lúcia Rocha and Ricardo Lewandowski), which lasted two hours and was captured by the lenses of photographers who followed the hearing..."
The images I saw were made only by one photographer, Roberto Stuckert Filho, from the Rio paper. The report had the hypothesis that other publications already had access to the conversations online, but did not want to use it.

To reach a conclusion, as described in judicial language, preliminary, I recall the first page and page A4 in Folha on June 27 showed the photographs, taken in the Senate, of the note from Renan Calheiros to Arthur Virgílio. Apparently, without authorization... that editorial decision was similar to one by "Globo" to show the "electronic notes" of the magistrates.

First impressions about the scoop of the day: the photographs were taken in a public building, with public access in a public session. There is public interest in knowing the inclinations of the Supreme Court in the case and inside information in unclear episodes, such as the pension of justice Sepúlveda Pertence.

The photographer did not illegally intercept electronic correspondence nor did he benefit from illicit interception by someone unauthorized. He covered a public event and got what was possible in the act - in this case, the most relevant information of the day, about the votes of some justices. He fulfilled his legitimate duty as a journalist.

The scoop imposes a series of inquiries: should the court decide according to the sentiments of the "community" or according to the letter of the law?; was the sudden departure of Pertence a political operation by the administration?; was it an attempt to influence the eventual trial of the bribery scandal?; what is the influence of advisers in the vote of the justices?

Readers will win if Folha is transparent by publishing in its edition tomorrow (Friday) the facts revealed today by its competitor.

In case the newspaper opts to not publish information at its disposal ("Globo" refers to "photographs"), I think its duty is to report the decision and motives.

The daily critique suspected something proved in the day before yesterday's edition: Folha had, but did not publish, part of the information in the Rio daily.

The longest passage in the dialogue between Cármen Lúcia and Lewandowski, giving opinions about the merits of the accusation, came out with more phrases in Folha.

The photograph of the justice's computer screen which illustrated the transcript was dated Wednesday, Aug. 22, credited to Alan Marques, a Folha photographer! There were conversations, however, that the newspaper suggested it had not investigated. It attributed them to "Globo."

Publishing the correspondence on Friday, Folha showed it considers what is public knowledge to be legitimate. But it did not go into details, saying it "would protect" the one caught in the act. Why did it wait a day? Deprived of a valuable report, readers lost out.

Talking to the newsroom

I asked for word from the newsroom. Response: "Folha had some photos showing the exchange of emails between justices. But it determined that the information contained in these photos did not contain material of public interest relevant to justify breaking the confidentiality of communication between the two magistrates."

It continues: "The computer screens reproduced by 'Globo' already contained information beyond what was available to Folha, about the clash of interests involving the departure of Pertence, his replacement and the trial of the bribery scandal. The exchange of messages suggests political interference in which investigation is warranted and could affect the public interest. In case Folha had the same information in its hands, maybe the newspaper's decision would have been different."

I disagree: before, with information from unidentified sources, the newspaper used pages and pages to speculate about the votes in the court; when it had indications about the work of two justices, obtained in a public place, without a hidden camera or disguised tape recorder, it neglected them.

The judiciary is the power least subject to the scrutiny of citizens and journalism. Folha showed courage in its coverage, as proved by the notable work of reporter Frederico Vasconcelos. On Thursday, the newspaper contradicted its tradition of daring and refused accommodation.

In the past three decades, Folha's successes outdid its mistakes by a large margin. Let's hope the historic mistake last week was a blunder, not a trend.

Translation by John Wright