11/11/2007

Dear reader: is Letters to the Editor really yours?

By Mário Magalhães
ombudsman@uol.com.br

Letters to the editor

Space for responses to news and stories*

August 19%
September 21%
*October8 14%

Space for response to opinions*

August 8%
September 7%
October 7%

Total space taken away from "ordinary" readers

August 27%
September 28%
October 21%

*in 2007 Source: ombudsman

The space for intervention by readers was appropriated by those who already have or should have other ways to get their message across

The day before yesterday was another one of those days. The so-called ordinary readers, those who in the "final analysis" "sustain" the newspaper, in the definition of Folha's stylebook, were deprived of more than half of the Letters to the Editor.

Two executives responded to a story about milk. A public relations adviser responded to a column about municipal codes. A member of Congress disagreed with a columnist. Once again, readers were hurt.

It has been that way for a long time. The section perpetuates an offensive inequality: while "anonymous" readers struggle to publish their letters --only 9% among more than 30,000 attempts through the end of October were successful-- politicians, business executives and public relations advisers provide one message after the other.

That is the finding of a survey that I did with my assistant Carlos Murga about the quarter that ended last month. In Letters to the Editor in August, 19% were occupied by those who objected to the news and 8% by those who felt affected by opinion (in columns, op-ed pieces and in Letters to the Editor itself). In total, 27%.

In September, the total reached 28%. In October, it was 21%, including complaints of journalists. For 53 days, we read comments of those wronged by the newspaper. In 11, readers who are not famous did not have access to even 50% of the space on page A3.

One Letters to the Editor was devoted to serving as a platform to the "other side," as the right to replay to information that runs in Folha is considered.

The space for intervention by readers was appropriated by those who already have or should have other ways to get their message across. The mistake surely is not by people and institutions whose message is assured by pluralistic, transparent journalism. It is the newspaper that is misleading.

On Aug. 17 and 25, Letters to the Editor welcomed protests by Sen. Renan Calheiros about political briefs in the national news section. It was his prerogative to reply.

But why did his words not come out in the political briefs on page 4? Why were readers punished with suppression of space for those who wrote letters? If the information appeared in a news section, why does the answer appear in the letters?

Worse: Sen. José Sarney and Congressman Fernando Gabeira, who can't complain about the attention that the newspaper gives them in the news, also show up frequently in the Letters to the Editor. It turns out that both are columnists in Folha.

Readers are the ones who always lose. The recognition of mistakes is an admirable practice. Because corrections are also in the corner of page 3, however, the more corrections that appear, the less space is available for Letters to the Editor, whose average size in the period surveyed was 75 centimeters (29.5 inches). (I did not calculate the longer version of Letters to the Editor in Folha Online, a kind of consolation for those neglected in the print version).

Another imbalance: correspondence by those not favored got reduced space; it is a failure compared to those treated with deference.

This year, 155 complaints accumulated, double the 75 in 2006, versus letters not published and the invasion of Letters to the Editor by authorities and the like. These laments have followed one ombudsman after the next, without Folha catching on.

It is probable that so many "other sides" result from anemic journalistic effort to listen to the parties. But the weakness changing the character of Letters to the Editor is not attenuated.

Folha could launch a section for the right to respond. By guaranteeing the defense of those discomforted, with letters or statements in quotations, in the sections responsible for the controversial text. There is no lack of options. What is missing is editorial willingness to defend the interest of readers in expressing their own topics in Letters to the Editor.

Do you still believe that Letters to the Editor belongs to readers? The way it is now, what should it be called? Do you have suggestions about what to call the letters from VIPs? Respond, and I will send your message to Letters to the Editor and the newsroom. It just can't keep going the way it is now.
Response from newsroom

I received from the managing editor the following response: "Folha does not want to divide letters into two categories: authorities and common readers. For this reason, we don't divide Letters to the Editor, a space that is democratic and pluralistic. The section is one of the most read in the newspaper, collecting opinions of common citizens with those of representatives of companies and the government. In fact, due to reasons of space, it will never be possible to publish every message received (approximately 100 per day). For this reason, the newspaper has begun to put more messages it receives in Folha Online."

A bad week

The week started badly for Folha. On Monday, human error was the only hypothesis cited as the cause in the crash of a Learjet Sunday in São Paulo.

The following days, the obvious became apparent: other possibilities, such as mechanical error, began to be investigated. Ignoring them on the first day of coverage of the deaths of eight people, the newspaper referred to possible error by those who can't defend themselves: the pilots.

On Tuesday, the edition did not carry news that was on the Internet since the previous day: Brazil's Democratic Party accused the defense minister, who Folha showed was willing to take a long holiday weekend in the northeastern state of Bahia in an Air Force jet paid for by contributors (Nelson Jobim said that he had traveled for work). The information had to wait for Wednesday.

Also on Tuesday, in a vibrant week, the Santos and Palmeiras soccer teams fought for a spot in the Liberators Cup, while Corinthians hid in the second rankings, but readers did not receive the table of teams which qualified for the Brazilian championship.

In compensation, there was no lack of championship.... British! The ball missed the mark, I add: my critique that dealt with the newspaper's selection of news was titled "A newspaper at the service of England."

On Thursday, it published a table of the Brazil championship. In the national edition, it was wrong, late and ran an old round.

Very bad

On Thursday, after having put news unfavorable to priest Júlio Lancelotti on the front page, the newspaper left off the front page and instead put on the inside "Police conclude that Father Júlio was being extorted."

The most important page, however, carried the irrelevant teaser "Nude by transvestite Rogério cancels exhibition in Congress." I asked: "Is this really Folha?"

The same day, with the proximity of the Nov. 15 holiday, the travel section and front page highlighted an enjoyable trip to the São Francisco River. One exception: the trip will only be available to tourists in.... February.

On Friday, the alarmist headline "Inmetro (the National Meteorological Institute) demands recall of toy that becomes 'ecstacy'" was reminiscent of the late newspaper "Noticias Populares."

Also the day before yesterday, a historic scoop, the version of a special forces police official about the death of the hijacker of bus 174 (in June 2000 in Rio de Janeiro) did not come out on the front page. Folha hid its good work during the week.

-Translation by John Wright