24/02/2008

We are all ombudsmen

By Mário Magalhães
ombudsman@uol.com.br

Readers are more demanding and skeptical; it is quite legitimate to seek to influence the newspaper and the actions of the ombudsman, as a newspaper for society

CONTACT WITH THE OMBUDSMAN

1991 - 3,748
2005 - 10,706
2006 - 13,280
2007 - 13,374

FOLHA CIRCULATION *

1991 - 388,190
2005 - 307,937
2006 - 309,383
2007 - 302,595

*Average daily, source: Folha

MEANS OF CONTACTING OMBUDSMAN IN %

Letter
1991 - 70.2
1997 - 14.8
2007 - 0.1

E-mail

1991 - 0.0
1997 - 35.6
2007 - 97.3

Fax

1991 - 0.1
1997 - 17.7
2007 - 0.1

Telephone

1991 - 29.2
1997 - 31.9
2007 - 2.6

COMMENTS BY SECTION IN 2007 *

Daily News 2,100 15.7%
National News 1,245 9.3%
Circulation/Marketing 970 7.3%
Folha Online 948 7.1%
Ombudsman 907 6.8%
Opinion Columns 903 6.8%
Arts & Entertainment 714 5.3%
Sports 628 4.7%
The Whole Newspaper 581 4.3%
Business 523 3.9%
Letters to the Editor 485 3.6%
Front Page 376 2.8%
Op-Ed 296 2.2%
Science 229 1.7%
World News 209 1.6%
*those mentioned most

COMMENT BY TYPE IN 2007 *

Protest and criticism 5,464 40.9%
Suggestions (of coverage & others) 1,411 10.6%
Errors of information 1,177 8.8%
Questions & request for clarification 990 7.4%
Complaints** 969 7.2%
Ask for help 901 6.7%
Praise 552 4.1%
Errors in spelling, Portuguese or polish 260 1.9%
Omission of information 254 1.9%
Protest and suggestion 123 0.9%

*those mentioned most
**about sections outside the newsroom

VARIATION *

National news

2006 - 15.9%
2007 - 9.3%

Daily news

2006 - 12.0%
2007 - 15.7%

*among all contacts

Observing the failure of appeals that the letters section honor its name, a reader wrote in November: "The current controversy about Letters to the Editor" only confirms that the ombudsman at the newspaper is useless and does not serve any purpose. Readers complain, the ombudsman sends, and the newsroom ignores it or gives an impolite response."

I grew wiser and, in fact, did not catch a glimpse of any utility of my role (except to pass the ball to others). And there are instances in which, as ombudsman, I feel totally useless. Just like the edition the day before yesterday.

I renewed the recommendations that Folha find balance in coverage of the accusations against Father Júlio Lancelotti. The bad news about him got a lot of play; the good news did not. On Friday, hidden in a footnote at the bottom of the page was the conclusion of the investigation by public investigators that the priest was the victim of extortion and not the perpetrator of a crime.

The same day, a distorted Letters to the Editor ran again, dominated by authorities. And the conflict in the newspaper's agenda with the world of readers was familiar with a new symbol by the absence on the front page of any mention of the flood in Sao Paulo. These failures become part of an inventory of robust lost battles.

It would be unfair, however, to not recognize the positive results of other battles in my 10½ months in this job. One of them was 12% growth in the correction of errors in 2007.

The absolute majority of corrections originated in notices from readers. It was the job of Marcelo Beraba until the beginning of April, and mine to seek clarifications from the newsroom and insist on corrections. No other Brazilian publication corrects with the transparency of Folha.

This performance, as well as some influence on the news and in editorial direction, resulted in the year of the best assistance to readers by the ombudsman, 13,374 contacts.

It was a modest 1% growth in comparison with 2006. The record, however, occurred during the time of national elections and the soccer World Cup, events which customarily stimulate movement. It ran counter to a 2% decline in circulation.

Most of the contacts were for protests and criticism. Of the 295 complaints about partiality, 95% griped about a tendency to favor the centrist Brazilian Social Democracy Party (PSDB) and against the governing (left-leaning Workers Party) PT (surveys of readers maintain that the majority see non-partisanship by the newspaper).

Even with smaller press runs, Folha meets ever-increasing demands. This is not a peculiar phenomenon. In the relationship between readers and the news media which inform them, there is no longer subordination and dependence. Journalism no longer has a monopoly over information or public debate.

With access to a vast number of sources, particularly on the Internet, citizens and consumers of news are more demanding and skeptical.

They question Folha and, on a smaller scale than is ideal, intervene in their work. It is quite legitimate for readers to seek to influence the newspaper --and the actions of the ombudsman-- as a newspaper for society.

While we are far from the time in which Paulo Francis sought those who wrote to the newspaper, journalism still resists scrutiny when it is a target.

Sectors at Folha continue their aversion to criticism. With caricatural arrogance, an editor opposed restrictions by a reader boasting "and so what?" I rejected the abuse, and the newsroom changed the answer.

The participation of readers in reflection about the press and dissemination of websites and blogs contribute to lessen the damage to democracy from concentration in the media. In a country with obscene social inequality, Brazil's news organizations remain in a few hands.

The ombudsman has two roles: listener and critic of journalism. I live among a huge number of reader-critics. In a certain way, they are ombudsmen. Folha would do better if it did not give the impression at times that it has little regard for their opinions and that the ombudsman is useless.

Translation by John Wright