15/06/2008

The question of impartiality

CARLOS EDUARDO LINS DA SILVA
ombudsman@uol.com.br

For the newspaper, being seen as impartial by all is impossible; what's worse is that it is not enough to be: it must seem to be

This week, the ombudsman received 42 messages from readers who complained about a lack of impartiality at Folha. Among them, 37 said that the newspaper favored the centrist Brazilian Social Democracy Party (PSDB) on various occasions and five believed that it favored the governing, left-learning Workers Party (PT).

That is a lot for someone who must respond to each one individually. But they don't reach 20% of the total sent to the ombudsman and are less than 10% of the correspondence sent to the newspaper and not even 0.01% of total readers.

It's obvious that is it not a statistical criterion that determines representation of a group of readers. Those who contact the newspaper, though they are few, are significant and important.

But the contingent that is shown by ideological or partisan motives is representative and should be taken into account by the ombudsman, who must represent all readers, including those who don't contact him.

Impartiality has been one of the pillars of Project Folha since 1984 and continues to be, according to a message to me this week from the managing editor's office.

It took on this role for market reasons, not ethics or politics: the reading public is comprised of people with diverse views of the world, and the newspaper can't give up on any of these groups.

Eduardo Guimarães, one of the most incisive media critics, with whom I have intense differences of opinion but for whom I have intellectual respect, said a newspaper that decides to alienate a share of readers who vote for a party with the electoral success of the PT in Brazil would be shooting itself in the foot.

That is true. Why would Folha do that? A hypothesis is that it is betting on a future presidential administration run by the PSDB, that it would get many advantages to compensate for the damage of alienation from current readers.

At that point it enters into the realm of beliefs because it is impossible to prove this theory. I don't believe it. If I did, I would not have accepted the invitation to occupy this position and, if one day I begin to believe it, I would have to leave this job.

The attacks against Folha by those who consider it favorable to the PSDB focus on three recent episodes: the Alstom case, the crisis in Rio Grande do Sul state and the story about political donations.

In the Alstom case, the newspaper "came out late," as the managing editor acknowledged. After the delay, it remained timid for three weeks. It woke up after competitors took the initiative, but it remained bad. It took a month to come out in an editorial.

Finally, on Friday, it produced a convincing story with exclusive information and pointed clearly to the link with those involved in the PSDB administration in São Paulo state.

In the crisis in Rio Grande do Sul state, the newspaper also had modest coverage up to this week, when finally - Tuesday and Friday - the topic went on the front page.

The worst case for me is that of the political donations, a story published with a lot of emphasis on May 26. I dedicated one-third of the June 1 column to the topic: the story dealt clearly with the unequal legal donations to the PSDB and PT by companies which later got contracts with the federal government and those in the states of São Paulo and Minas Gerais.

While the value of the contracts in relation to the donations was much bigger in the case of the PSDB, all the emphasis was on the PT.

I asked the managing editor's office to explain the criteria, and their response did not convince me: in the case of the PT, the payments for the administration were already made and those for the PSDB had not been made yet. It would have been better, in my opinion, to recognize a mistake in judgment.

Being impartial in a polarized, politically divisive atmosphere is really difficult. To be seen as impartial by all is impossible. What's worse is that it is not enough to be: it is necessary to seem to be. In these three cases, Folha often does not seem to be.

To read

"A Thousand Days: Six Thousand Days Later," by Carlos Eduardo Lins da Silva. Publifolha, 2005 - tells the story of Project Folha and how impartiality became one of its pillars (starting at 29.60 reals, or US$ 18.50)

"The Media in the 2006 Election," organized by Venício A. de Lima. Perseu Abramo Foundation Publishers, 2007 - collection of texts, most of them complaints about the lack of impartiality by the press in the 2006 election (29.88 reals)

"Personal History," by Katharine Graham, translated by Ana Luiz Dantas Borges, DBA, 1998 - excellent autobiography of a publisher who had partisan opinions but did not put them into her newspaper (starting at 20.54 reals)

"Public Social Policy and the Challenges for Journalism." Diverse authors. Andi and Cortez Publishing, 2008 - collection of texts, some of them about the necessity for impartiality in the debate about public policy (starting at 31.72 reals)

"The Press in Question," organized by Alberto Dines, Carlos Vogt and José Marques de Melo. Unicamp Publishing, 1997 - collection of texts, several of them about the question of impartiality (starting at 17.71 reals)

To see

"Lions for Lambs," by Robert Redford (2007), with Meryl Streep, Tom Cruise and Robert Redford - shows the dilemma of a reporter who receives exclusive information about the war in Afghanistan from a senator who he opposes ideologically (starting at 44.90 reals)

"All the President's Men," by Alan Pakula (1976), with Dustin Hoffman and Robert Redford - movie classic tells how the "Washington Post," without being partisan, helped bring down Richard Nixon (29.90 reals)

"Citizen Kane," by and starring Orson Wells (1941) - best film in history shows the point to which partisanship can be used by a newspaper (starting at 24.65 reals)

"Merry Christmas," by Christian Carion (2005), with Diane Kruger and Daniel Bruhl - at the height of war, it is possible to find commonality to bring together enemies (29.90 reals)

Topics most commented during the week

1. Rio Grande do Sul
2. Alstom case
3. Sports coverage

What the newspaper did right

Mammogram
Good story about a law that will increase exams and provides funding to perform them

Child labor
Various stories show that the newspaper is attentive to efforts devoted to the topic

Land
Story on Sunday about the sale of land to foreigners was wide-reaching and well done

And where it was wrong

Savings and Loan
Coverage was timid about a topic of huge public interest, the government savings and loan Nossa Caixa

Sports
Newspaper gave little space and poor treatment to the victory by Recife Sport in the Brazil Cup

Balance
Publication of letters about the front page which suggested racism did not reflect the proportion of criticism (much more numerous) and support

-Translation by John Wright