06/04/2008

Farewell

By Mário Magalhães
ombudsman@uol.com.br

Over the past year, when people enjoyed Sunday nights and so many families went out on their final stroll of the weekend, mine knew that we would be at home - or at least we wouldn't all go out together. It was time to start the long and solitary work inside to scrutinize the morning newspapers and magazines.

In the morning, with eyes complaining about lost sleep, I read the day's editions and wrote the most solid critique of the week, the one for Monday. Tonight, if somebody calls me, he will have company.

This is the 51st and final Sunday column that I am writing as ombudsman at Folha. I assumed this position on April 5, 2007, and my mandate ended the day before yesterday. While the statute authorizes renewal for up to two more terms, there was no agreement with managers at the newspaper to continue.

Folha conditioned my continuation to the end of circulation on the Internet of the daily critiques by the ombudsman. The demand was presented to me months ago. I did not agree. Facing this impasse, I left the position. As the eighth journalist to occupy this job, I became the second one to not continue more than a year. They were all invited to stay. I was the first one with such a demand to roll back the transparency of the job as a condition to renew.

The critique on Thursday was the last one to circulate on Folha's online version, with access to non-subscribers of Folha and UOL (Online Universe).

Starting now, the commentaries produced by the ombudsman during the week will only be seen by a restricted audience, employees of the newspaper and the company, who receive it by email. Readers lose the right. It was that way in the primordial stage of the job, created in 1989. The Internet was in its infancy.

As can be seen on the website www.folha.com.br/ombudsman since 2000, the critiques have been online. For eight years, readers could monitor the daily activity of those with the responsibility to represent them.

They can't any longer.

Rules

The leadership at Folha argued their case for the decision: in the environment of exacerbated competition in the journalistic market, ideas and suggestions by the ombudsman are implemented by other dailies.

In fact, this does occur.

And it will happen again.

Almost 20 years ago, the critiques were still considered internal and were distributed on paper in the newsroom.

They ended up in the hands of other newspapers. One of them ran an ad boasting of praise by the ombudsman.

With diffusion by email, it will be even harder to contain unauthorized distribution of observations by the reader's listener. Those who are interested and well connected will have a way to read them. What secret survives with hundreds of recipients?

The so-called common readers, who have the good fortune of every successful journalistic endeavor, will be barred. The measure does not resolve the problem it proposes as a solution, and it hurts others.

Not renewing the mandate is legitimate, following the newspaper's constitution. Management has the prerogative whether or not to invite the ombudsman to stay. And to make the rules. There is no broken contract; it was respected.

In my case, there was a change of rules in the middle of the term, comprised of one to three terms. Rules, such as Folha recommends, should be established before the game starts.

Autopsy

It is not customary for print newspapers around the world to share on the Internet what many of them consider internal memoranda from the reader's listener.

Be that as it may, at the conference of the Organization of Newspaper Ombudsmen, with participants from 13 countries, I did not find anyone who wrote every day, as we do here, a critique or a memorandum.

Folha took a daring step in the Brazilian press by appointing an ombudsman. It radicalized and made public the critique which previously was limited to the newsroom. More than the Sunday columns, this type of examination is meant to be an autopsy of editions. In minute details, it identifies weaknesses, without neglecting virtues. It exposes the newspaper's viscera.

The ombudsman's challenge is to be the best possible synthesis of reader interests. They are interested in the newspaper doing well. In the critiques, the ombudsman seeks to contribute so the newspaper is better the next day than it was the day before.

This confluence makes the ombudsman a potential benefit to the reader and the newspaper.

Even when the critiques are kept from readers, Folha will not lose its primacy in transparency in Brazilian journalism. The Sunday columns will continue, and publication of a column of this type expresses tolerance for divergent thinking.

How many newspapers would publish something if the object of analysis is itself?

Regression

Despite this scenario, the restriction imposed is a regression in transparency. Folha's editorial project recommends "journalism that is increasingly critical and more criticized." It recognizes that "readers examine the guidelines of commitments" by the newspaper.

The ombudsman should be an instrument of readers. If 80% of the weekly pronouncements become inaccessible (the critiques are Monday to Thursday and do not come out Friday), that reduces examination by readers about what is being done to fight in their name.

This dispute does not imply, for example, advocating the newspaper's alignment with backers or opponents of stem cell research, but encourages balance in the news and in space given to controversy.

An ombudsman incapable of watching over maintaining transparency of his job lacks the authority to fight for transparency in the newspaper. How do you make demands when your forum is declining?

The tendency around the world is expansion of transparency at news organizations. Things at Folha appear to be going in the opposite direction.

Acknowledgments

The daily critique is valuable as a tool for dialogue between readers and the ombudsman. What do they think about this or that? At times, the answer is found in the topics of the day. Last week, it was possible to confirm if I asked Folha who gave it the dossier of the moment. A response would signify breaking the commitment to secrecy with a source. A minister says that I asked. It was not true.

If I responded to readers without the chance they will see the critique online, I wouldn't know how to keep track of helping readers. In 1991, the first year for which statistics survive, contact was made 3,748 times with the ombudsman. In 2007, it was a record 13,374.

In January, February and March of 2008, unprecedented numbers were registered. The 24% jump in comparison to the same quarter of the previous year would result in an annual total above 16,500, without taking into account the impact of events such as the election and Olympics.

The strength of the Ombudsman Department is a manifestation of the change in behavior by citizens and consumers of news: faith in journalistic reports has given way to skepticism; submission to accounts has changed into critical reading; passivity is replaced by demands. This is the main characteristic of journalism in the 21st Century. It should be welcomed by society and by journalists.

Upon arrival, I thought I had a lot to say. Upon leaving, I know that I have a lot to hear.

I would like to have spoken about other topics, such as ads for prostitution. That will wait for another time.

For the year in which I was happy, I am grateful for the confidence that managers at Folha placed in me. I had freedom to write what I wanted. An executive told me that the newspaper needed a "critical ombudsman." I tried to carry out the mission scrupulously.

I am grateful to my super-secretary Rosângela Pimentel, and my assistant, future journalist Carlos Murga. In the Managing Editor's office I am indebted to Suzana Singer and Alba Bruna Campenerut.

In the art department, to Fábio Marra and Julia Monteiro. Putting the column on paper and saving me from bigger annoyances, Vanessa Alvez coordinated a talented and generous team.

My biggest gratitude is for those who taught me priceless lessons --tonight, at home or outside, I will not forget to toast the readers of Folha.

Translation by John Wright