14/10/2007

A promiscuous episode

By Mário Magalhães
ombudsman@uol.com.br

Folha published at the top of the page in Wednesday's editions the headline "Recording in Senate discomforts Renan." It would be more precise to recognize that the episode should discomfort the newspaper.

With an attitude contrary to its own values and procedures established in its editorial project in effect since the 1970s, Folha has associated itself with one politician attacking the other. The newspaper presented Sen. Demóstenes Torres in a recording of his conversation with a lawyer.

The decision set a dangerous precedent in the principle of non-partisanship established by Folha's own stylebook and the newspaper's right to maintain recordings of interviews and dialogues in its own possession. When someone denies having said what he said to Folha, anyone can request and get the tapes.

Is that an exaggeration? Just check out the facts.

One determining motive for the permission for Renan Calheiros to lead the Senate --announced, finally, on Thursday --was the revelation that his adviser tried to snoop on Sens. Demóstenes Torres and Marconi Perillo.

On Saturday, Oct. 6, Folha reported --with the unfortunate description-- the story "Renan's adviser is accused of espionage."

The same day the news magazine "Veja" came out with a similar story. The night before, the "Noblat Blog" described the involvement of Renan's adviser, Francisco Escórcio, in the alleged dubious mission.

Last Tuesday the newspaper boasted about its illusory pioneering: "The case came to light after Demóstenes told Folha that his friend Pedrinho Abrão, a businessman, met with Escórcio in Goiânia in the office of a lawyer."

Abrão had been approached by Escórcio --or proposed, according to the version-- to film Renan's antagonists in the jets of executives. Another front in the supposed spying was to tap telephones.

On Saturday, Oct. 6, the newspaper interviewed lawyer Heli Dourado, in whose office the meeting took place in Goiás. He confirmed that he spoke about catching Sen. Perillo in jets. Folha had the "scoop" on Sunday ("Adviser tries to spy, says lawyer").

Heli Dourado soon denied the assertions. Last Tuesday, Demóstenes played in the Senate the recording of the telephone interview with reporter Leonardo Souza of Folha's Brasília bureau, with Dourado. In it, the lawyer said the newspaper transcribed it exactly.

Demóstenes gave a copy of the recording to the authority of the Senate. In other words, Folha outsourced its prerogative whether or not to present the tape.

The newspaper has resources to reaffirm the statements: the reply "they are recorded"; publishing new phrases and the duration of the conversation; and putting the audio on Folha Online.

It is not fitting to make parliamentarians into spokespersons to clarify information produced by Folha. With the recording in Demóstenes' interest, the newspaper appeared partisan.

It is obvious that Renan is against it, thanks to robust journalistic work, a vast array of documentation. Meanwhile, if the former supporter of ex-President Fernando Collor de Mello asked the newspaper, in the name of balance, would it give him the recording? Giving into him would be equally improper.

Politicians are the objects of oversight and sources of information, not allies. Distance in relation to them and power in general is good for journalism. Promiscuity is not.

The newsroom asserted: "Folha was wrong to give the audio of the interview to the senator. While there was no unreported content on the tape --everything had been published in the newspaper-- it is not right for Folha to provide material to parties in the conflict ... The reporter consulted with his editors, but, because of a misunderstanding, he was authorized to provide the tape to the senator."

Congressman vacillates, Folha does not forgive

Congressman Paulo Renato, who served as education minister during the administration of former President Fernando Henrique Cardoso, made a mistake by sending Folha an op-ed piece for publication, "Tentacles of reversing privatization." He criticized the activities of state-owned Banco do Brasil to absorb the Bank of Santa Catarina state, which would constitute a "clear offense of competitive rules."

That is a legitimate thought.

His vacillation was to leave, at the bottom of an email, an earlier consultation he made with the president of Bradesco Bank. He wrote to Márcio Cypriano: "In an attachment, go to the revised article. I sought to put it within the limits of Folha's space. Please see that it is correct and that you agree or have some observation."

The newspaper reported on Wednesday that the congressman submitted the piece to the bank. Paulo Renato, an economist, maintained he was seeking a technical opinion.

Those who send a message of this type to Folha count on anonymity. But there is room for the newspaper to exhibit articulations and lobbies when this information has public interest. I believe that a commitment to readers, and not parliamentarians, should prevail.

For this reason, Folha was correct in reporting what it knew and responding to the request to cancel publication. It is a right of the congressman, and the story on Wednesday already told about the contents of the opinion piece.

Ferréz against Huck: is it worth it to publish everything?

It seems to be a mistake to classify as an "argument between Luciano Huck and Ferréz" the debate that has animated Letters to the Editor for the two past weeks.

TV entertainer Huck took the initiative to send Folha the piece "Nearly posthumous thoughts" in which he told about the shock at having a Rolex watch stolen with a gun pointed to his head. It came out the Monday before last. It was not controversial toward anyone in particular.

The one who started the controversy with him last Monday was Ferréz. The rapper and writer, also on his own initiative, had the opinion piece "Thoughts of a robber" published in the same space. He reconstituted the assault from the robber's viewpoint: "Everyone won, the victim kept what was most valuable to him, which is his life, and the robber kept the watch."

Readers protested. For some, the newspaper should have refused the "elitist" piece by Huck. Others were bothered by Ferréz's "apology for the crime."

I believe that Folha, open to divergent views, proved its virtues of pluralism. I am opposed to unrestricted opinion pieces. For example, the newspaper should turn down Holocaust deniers.

But Ferréz did not praise the robber. He elaborated a fiction. He and Huck were enriched by the reflection about violence, whether or not you agree with the clear or underlying ideas.

Translation by John Wright