28/10/2007

Always on Sundays

By Mário Magalhães
ombudsman@uol.com.br

To be precise, almost always: on nine of the past 12 Sundays, or three out of four, Folha published results from Datafolha surveys.

Headlines trumpeted that the mess at airports and the tragedy at Congonhas did not shake the popularity of President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva; that former São Paulo Gov. Geraldo Alckmin (who ran against Lula in last year's election) is the favorite for São Paulo mayor; that Brazilians oppose harsh criticism; that most smokers are unable to quit cigarettes; and told about habits of families nationwide.

The front page also flaunted surveys about the quality of hospitals, according to a diagnosis by doctors; the stars at the most popular soccer clubs; and the favorite MBA programs.

Folha Magazine, without a teaser on the front page, reported that residents of Brazil's biggest cities believe homosexuals practice certain jobs and roles.

In all, it was beautiful work. But the beautiful Datafolha institute is not journalism.

An essential journalistic role is to inform, contribute so readers, in the case of printed media, know more about things. It is not to publish surveys about what they --or public opinion-- think about this or that, although the numbers are relevant sometimes.

It is possible that the predominance of Datafolha's work in the newspaper configures a "theory of dependence." If journalism is weak and does not tell good stories, a survey plugs the hole.

As I noted in a daily critique (read in www.folha.com.br/ombudsman), "Folha's fascination with percentages is undeniable. But the focus on surveys might indicate an absence of stories that could be rivals for the most-coveted space in the newspaper (the front page)." On Sept. 23, it offered no conclusion about smokers with "Taking action to give an impulse to formalization," a graceless headline.

Sunday editions are the most finely polished --for this reason they are still more dependent on data. Planning begins Mondays at 3 p.m. in meetings in the newsroom.

The 1987 stylebook said this: "In the tradition of morning papers, it is the biggest edition of the week, both in the number of news pages as well as the amount of advertising. It is the edition which allows the most stories for reading: investigative reports, longer analyses, more well-formed material from surveys."

The "survey material" is not public opinion, but journalistic. There is nothing wrong with asking whether "investigative reports" are redundant.

The lack of stories with breadth in recent months transformed the Sunday newspaper into an assiduous transmitter of surveys. They are a valuable trump card at certain times, such as electoral campaigns. If they are rendered vulgar as a journalistic resource, they lose their value.

A public opinion survey is business for a polling organization. For the newspaper it is journalism: choose topics, search for information, reveal stories and show conflicting ideas.

There is no free lunch

TAM flies 56 flights per week between São Paulo and Buenos Aires. Gol has 28. Aerolineas Argentinas has 27. LAN has seven. British Airways has four.

Although it has 3% of the 122 takeoffs, British was the only company cited in the main story of the travel section the Thursday before last, dedicated to Buenos Aires. Data about occupancy of its airplanes proved a success for the operation to Argentina.

There is no obligation to consider and report about only companies that fly the most.

On the page carrying the story about hotels, those chosen to be photographed were the Hyatt, Faena and Alvear. The selection of images is part of the job of editing. The listing later carried 20 hotels.

Who knows if the choice were a mere coincidence; statistically it is a hypothesis.

The incontestible coincidence was the attention given to those who paid for the trip of the two writers. Others, not Folha, paid expenses for transportation and lodging.

One reporter was the guest of Hyatt. The reporter traveled on British and, according to an editor's note, stayed with "the Leading hotel chain" --which is associated in some way with the Faena and the Alvear. Folha, instead of informing in a transparent way that the reporter was a guest of Faena, said that the host was the Leading chain, whose relationship with the hotels was ignored. It was discovered only on the Internet.

The incidence of trips "by invitation" is journalistically questionable in the coverage of travel in Brazilian publications, including Folha.

Clarification about the status of "journalistic invitation" is a triumph in which Folha was a pioneer.

But it does not eliminate the problem of the connection between publication and the party which pays. If the newspaper bore costs for the trip, there would be no restriction on the choice of hotel photos published.

That is not what the travel editor, Silvio Cioffi, believes in his response to the daily critique by the ombudsman: "I would like to clarify that journalistic stories did not give attention 'only to sponsors of the trip.' One reporter traveled at the invitation of the Hotel Faena, the other by the Hyatt."

"We decided to include the Alvear and, as we always do, following the stylebook, we included in that edition a mention about the invitations - transparently. We still published, by highlighting and pluralism, information about 31 travel packages for the Argentine capital and well-researched data about 20 hotels and hostels (starting at US $9 per day).

"The same goes for prices and web sites for all the air carriers which fly to Buenos Aires (there are 120 per week). The main story also carried criticism, telling about theft of wallets, passports and cameras."

The information was ample, but the deference in stories and photos went to sponsors. Service journalism should not be promotional. Its role is to help the reader-tourist to guide himself and avoid traps.

The tone of the section was too much boosterism, exemplified by this headline on the front page: "Buenos Aires - agreeable for all tastes and budgets." I disagree: there are people who don't like it and those who don't have enough money to travel.

Translation by John Wright